Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Le dimanche 20 mai 2007 =C3=A0 14:02 -0700, Eric Smith a =C3=A9crit : >> Bssed on the naming guidelines, I think the SRPM should be >> asl-1.42-0.x.bld55.src.rpm. But my question is what to do about >> the source file. Do I leave it as asl-current.tar.gz, or do I >> rename it locally as asl-current-1.42-bld55.tar.gz? > You leave the file as-is. Except when one needs to remove embargoed > content (patented code, etc=E2=80=A6) you shall not do any reprocessing/ren= > aming > outside the spec file, that just kills the rpm audit trail and general > reproduceability. That sounds like a knee-jerk response that completely misses the problem. If upstream issues different tarballs under the same name at different times, you've got an audit and reproduceability issue no matter what --- which version were you using in SRPM xyz? I think I'd argue that renaming the tarballs locally is the least bad answer, as that at least makes it easier to keep them straight internally. > It may be important to you as packager. In that case your job is to > convince upstream to fix their habits. Agreed, the best answer is to persuade upstream that he's out of step with the packaging practices of the entire world. regards, tom lane -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
