Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=548324 --- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-08 04:20:50 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #7) > > I suggest to extend the two lines in the spec-file from > > > > # $ make ed2bf5.tar > > Source0: ed2bf5.tar > > > > to > > > > # $ make ed2bf5.tar > > # $ mv ed2bf5.tar gitolite-%{version}.tar > > # $ gzip -9 gitolite-%{version}.tar > > Source0: %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz > > Umm, that was an upstream decision (the file name), we don't usually rename > upstream tarballs and I'm reluctant to do so. Fedora already has guidelines for creating source tarball based on the upstream VCS: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control i.e. tarball name must begin with %{name}- in this case, and the tarball should contain the information about version, revision, etc in its name. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review