On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:47:16 +0100, Petr Machata wrote: > Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > I'm saying that srpms have a long live, and that with svn if you > > request revision $number 5 years later if upstream has re-done its svn > > in the meanwhile what you'll get is not what you got 5 years before. > > Agreed. By then the upstream could disappear, migrate to whatever hip > vc system there is in five years, etc. And maybe I fail to see the > intent behind using the date in release tag of vcs-checkouted package. > Perhaps it's just an arbitrary identifier. But if the intent is > anything close to making a life easier for whoever reconstructs the > srpm, using the release number makes more sense than the date alone. The instructions on how to check out the source from cvs/svn/whatever should be put into comments in the spec file. Don't attempt at squeezing svn revisions (and silimar identifiers) into the package file name. Originally, the date in the file name has been used as (1) information about the age of a packaged post/pre-release _snapshot_ and (2) as the least-significant portion of %release (the newer date of a newer checkout would make the built package an upgrade without the need to bump %release elsewhere). If todays policies say you must add a date and SCM id like YYYYMMDDcvs, they ought to be revisited. ;) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
