Comment # 8
from Paul Howarth
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > (In reply to comment #4) > > > - Shipping the *.asc sig seems pretty meaningless to me. > > > > I just see it being used as an extra check that the tarball hasn't changed, > > (if we keep the signature in git) given that upstream's releases aren't > > versioned. > I guess you are aware, Fedora's git is automatically adding m5sums to > "sources"? True, but I guess the signature is a bit more obvious. > This would apply if you intend to push the tarball to git's lookaside cache. > > However, this would raise the next point, I don't know the answer to: Does > Fedora's git lookaside cache allow unversioned tarballs, rsp. can the > lookaside cache handle this? Yes: the URL to a tarball in the lookaside cache is: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/repo/pkgs/<PACKAGE>/<TARBALL>/<MD5SUM>/<TARBALL> So tarballs with the same name for the same package can co-exist as long as their md5sums are different, which is a pretty safe bet. (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #5) > > > > Only issue I see now is that it should have a "Requires: pari-gp" > > > for proper resolution of dependencies. > > > > Can't do that as it would lead to a circular build dependency for pari > > itself, and it's also conceivable that other software could use the same > > data without requiring pari-gp. I did add a "Conflicts: pari-gp < 2.2.11" as > > that's the oldest version that can use this data, though perhaps that should > > be "pari" rather than "pari-gp"? > > Do you mean these packages will be build requires of pari now? I > see they could be useful in a very complete %check. Yes, that's the intention - see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821191#c10 > I think the conflict does not matter much, as pari-gp is a pari > subpackage. Don't know what you mean by that. I was wondering whether it was pari-gp that used the data packages, or the underlying library "pari" - the conflict should refer to the part of pari that actually uses the data. > About data reuse, actually, sagemath ships elldata in a different > format (not sure if complete and optimized for size, but a lot smaller), > as well as it also creates a cremona_mini.db sqlite3 db during build. But that's derived from this package though, isn't it?
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