Martin Marques wrote:
Bill Nottingham escribió:
Petr Machata (pmachata@xxxxxxxxxx) said:
Steve Grubb wrote:
kdepim-enterprise-svn20070926.tar.bz2
As a side note, I always wondered why to use date in the release tag of
package, whose sources come from non-cvs versioning system. For svn, in
my opinion, it would make more sense to use the tree revision number;
for git, similarly, sha1 id of the tree.
Well, git<date> sorts sanely. git<sha1> does not. Comments in the spec
(or similar) might help with this.
git<date> from where? Remember that git is distributed and unless you
have a centralized copy git<date> can have more then one copy.
This actually is a reasonable point but you might not like the answer
:-). Git is distributed but that doesn't mean we should be pulling from
any git tree. It doesn't even mean that we should be pulling from
several different git trees. In almost all cases there should be one
upstream git tree that upstream either designates as canonical or one
that we decide it would be sane to pull from for a reasonable amount of
time (with reasonable amount purposely left vague so maintainers have
leeway here.)
Once again, though, the information in the release field after the
mandatory integer at the beginning is for the end user to indicate the
age of the upstream pull. Git hashes and other ids that aren't either
well known to end users or have some bearing on age (incrementing
integers show some idea of age, a checksum does not) don't fit this
criteria. They belong in the spec file as part of a comment on how to
checkout the sources but are of limited use in the release tag itself.
-Toshio
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
