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=529496 --- Comment #21 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-12 12:35:58 EST --- > % spectool -g libmtag.spec > “./libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz” saved $ rpmdev-extract libmtag-0.3.2-1.fc11.src.rpm libmtag-0.3.2-1.fc11.src/libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz libmtag-0.3.2-1.fc11.src/libmtag.spec $ md5sum libmtag-0.3.2-1.fc11.src/libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz 6c57340a60a82f2732d5b55c78c994f0 libmtag-0.3.2-1.fc11.src/libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz $ spectool -g libmtag-0.3.2-1.fc11.src/libmtag.spec --2010-01-12 18:07:56-- http://libmtag.googlecode.com/files/libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz Resolving libmtag.googlecode.com... 209.85.135.82 Connecting to libmtag.googlecode.com|209.85.135.82|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found 2010-01-12 18:07:56 ERROR 404: Not Found. $ rm -f libmtag-0.3.2-1.fc11.src/libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz $ spectool -g libmtag-0.3.2-1.fc11.src/libmtag.spec --2010-01-12 18:08:32-- http://libmtag.googlecode.com/files/libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz Resolving libmtag.googlecode.com... 74.125.43.82 Connecting to libmtag.googlecode.com|74.125.43.82|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found 2010-01-12 18:08:33 ERROR 404: Not Found. $ rm -f libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz $ md5sum libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz 7374002ed89009f5f932da4494acff0e libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz So: 1.) The checksums still didn't match until you updated the src.rpm! 2.) The 404 error is a problem of wget+googlecode.com on Fedora 12, to reproduce: $ touch libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz $ wget http://libmtag.googlecode.com/files/libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz 2>&1|grep 404 HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 404 Not Found 2010-01-12 18:11:44 ERROR 404: Not Found. Only 0.3.2-2 includes the changed tarball now. > That's 200 words just to say "update the SRPM". Bottom of comment 15 did it in ~6 words. > An SRPM is essentially a .spec + a tarball. The spec is the same > posted since the beginning, and the tarball was released as mentioned > in comment #11. But if you want me to do 'rpmbuild -bs libmtag.spec', > ok, will do. It's common practise to do so, not only so reviewers can use rpmdiff as a convenient tool to examine the changes between package releases. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Contributor says: "please post the URLs to the updated SPEC and SRPM file" > > You were pointed at Fedora's guidelines about that. > > You refused to include the license terms in the tarball, > > That's a lie. I never refused to do that. And still the 0.3.2-2 src.rpm doesn't include the license terms. Originally, I just followed: | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines | | SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) | as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query | upstream to include it. Let's see. You added a LICENSE file in upstream git on Nov 8th with the commit message | Add licence and copyright information | | This should have been like that since the beginning. (hear! hear!) only to release the 0.3.2 tarball on Nov 21th _without_ including this LICENSE file. And in the updated src.rpm, you also did not consider fixing this. How to make sense of that? -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review