Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >> 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/renaming >> outside the spec file, that just kills the rpm audit trail and general >> reproduceability. Tom Lane wrote: > 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. That had been my feeling as well, but apparently there's not a consensus on it. >> 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. Fortunately in this particular case, as Trond Danielsen pointed out, there actually are files available with versioned filenames; they just weren't linked from the official download page so I had not noticed them. I've updated the spec file appropriately. Once I verify it again with rpmlint, mock, and some sample assemblies, I'll request a review. Thanks! Eric -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
