On 07/31/2009 01:48 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 01:09:43PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: >> On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 01:20 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >>> That's kind of side tracking though. Point is that SRPM as upstream >>> source is simply a stupid thing. We would complain loudly or atleast >>> whine about it if Novell or Mandriva or Debian did that. Wouldn't we? >>> >>> Why should we have an exception anymore? I can't think of a single >>> reason why we should. >>> >> >> If there was no public available source repo, yes we'd complain. If >> there was, I don't think we'd complain really. > > We don't complain about no public source repo. See deltarpm. It's "repo" > consists of the tarball we use already. It doesn't even have an easily > findable project website. > We're supposed to. The review for deltarpm says that the reviewer checked the tarball against upstream: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=202033 This is what's in the current spec: """ URL: http://gitorious.org/deltarpm/deltarpm Source: %{name}-git-20090729.tar.bz2 """ This doesn't follow the Guidelines but doesn't look as bad as you say. There is a public source repo on gitorious. jdieter has commit access there. It seems like all that's needed is the comment that says: # Generate source by doing: # git clone -r FFFFFFFFFF http://gitorious.org/deltarpm/deltarpm # tar -czf deltrpm-%{version}.tar.gz deltarpm -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
