https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198342 --- Comment #26 from Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt (Fedora Packager Sponsors Group) from comment #25) > 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. I guess I would agree if the packager does it, but here, it's upstream, linked from http://www.fresse.org/dateutils/. There's no upstream obligation to preserve tarballs for _any_ releases forever, so I'm not sure why this needs special handling. > $ 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. Okay, so I guess in this case I can just put all of 0.3.2.git35.3e322eb as the version. > 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: Yes, noted above, and reported upstream at https://github.com/hroptatyr/dateutils/issues/34#issuecomment-94950060 -- 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