On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:59:46 +0200
Denis Leroy <denis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dan Horák wrote:
> > Adam Tkac pÃÅ¡e v Út 14. 10. 2008 v 22:01 +0200:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I'm trying pass tightvnc package through package review but I've
> >> been informed that I don't meet package naming guidelines.
> >>
> >
> > I am doing the review, so I will try to explain.
> >
> >> Source is pulled from upstream svn so I used this Revision tag and
> >> .tar.bz2 name:
> >>
> >> tightvnc-1.5.0-0.4.svn2975%{?dist}
> >> tightvnc-1.5.0-svn2975.tar.bz2
> >>
> >> Point where source was taken from upstream VCS is absolutely clear
> >> - it was revision 2975 but packaging guidelines says that I have
> >> to use date (something like 20081008svn or 20081008svn2975):
> >
> > 20081008svn2975 is preferred here
>
> It doesn't make much sense to put both date and svn revision into the
> tag. Use one or the other. For CVS, the date is the only option of
> course. Most of the svn snapshots packages we have right now only use
> the revision number, which in the case of svn is more accurate than
> the snapshot date.
>
> Mabye the FPC can revisit this if the wiki page is confusing...
The wiki page is IMO quite clear and requires the date. There are
examples on the page of svn checkouts that include the date.
The FPC are aware that a date can be inferred from an svn revision
number but felt that including the date was useful anyway, as a reading
of the discussion around the subject shows:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes20070619
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes20070626
Paul.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
