https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198342 --- Comment #25 from Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> --- Yeah, it kinda circumvents the snapshot guidelines, if one manages to find an online service that can generate snapshot tarballs from github and other repos. Possibly short-lived tarballs that are not available for download as long as the release tarballs. You end up with a source tarball that's 404 not found with no info on how to recreate it. Anyway, that's not the full story. The snapshot you've packaged is version "0.3.3.GIT" in its configure script, not 0.3.2 as in your RPM package. That value enters the config.h header as VERSION and PACKAGE_VERSION macro and may find its way into the compiled sources, too: $ grep VERSION src/config.h #define PACKAGE_VERSION "0.3.3.GIT" #define VERSION "0.3.3.GIT" There's another version "0.3.2.git35.3e322eb" in the version.mk file, which matches the tarball but not the RPM spec file either. That version is added into the manual pages and executables, for example. It is also larger than 0.3.2: $ dateadd --version dateadd 0.3.2.git35.3e322eb So, you've packaged something that is not 0.3.2 with a package %version 0.3.2. It may be unimportant for dateutils, but the guidelines are not just about dateutils. If one considers the snapshot a post-release package, the guidelines say: | Also, packagers using the post-release scheme should put a comment | in their spec file with a brief description of the upstream conventions | for naming/versioning that are being worked around. That refers to moving ".git35.3e322eb" from %version into %release, so in the RPM system and the user your package appears as 0.3.2 although is something post-0.3.2 or pre-0.3.3. A minor detail only. Doubtful that many packagers add a comment like that even in trivial cases. [...] Something else: The built package contains several manuals with no corresponding executables. Notice all the short names, such as "dadd, dconv, ddiff". Something's broken there: $ rpmls dateutils -rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/dateadd -rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/dateconv -rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/datediff -rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/dategrep -rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/dateround -rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/dateseq -rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/datesort -rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/datetest -rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/datezone -rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/strptime drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/dateutils -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/dateutils/iata.tzmcc -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/dateutils/icao.tzmcc -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/dateutils/mic.tzmcc drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/doc/dateutils -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/dateutils/LICENSE -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/doc/dateutils/README.md -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/info/dateutils.info.gz drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/licenses/dateutils -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/licenses/dateutils/LICENSE -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man1/dadd.1.gz -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man1/dateadd.1.gz -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man1/dateconv.1.gz -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man1/datediff.1.gz -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man1/dategrep.1.gz -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man1/dateround.1.gz -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man1/dateseq.1.gz -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man1/datesort.1.gz -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man1/datetest.1.gz -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man1/dateutils.1.gz -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man1/datezone.1.gz -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man1/dconv.1.gz -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man1/ddiff.1.gz -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man1/dgrep.1.gz -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man1/dround.1.gz -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man1/dseq.1.gz -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man1/dsort.1.gz -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man1/dtest.1.gz -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man1/dzone.1.gz -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/man/man1/strptime.1.gz -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review