https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295144 --- Comment #14 from Eduardo Mayorga <e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Martin Ueding from comment #13) > In response to gil (#7): > > > %global commit0 1e158fb > > %global shortcommit0 %(c=%{commit0}; echo ${c:0:11}) > > I only got it to work with the following: > > %global commit0 1e158fb20108 > %global shortcommit0 %(c=%{commit0}; echo ${c:0:7}) > > Source0: > https://bitbucket.org/raymonad/%{name}/get/%{commit0}.tar.gz#/%{name}- > %{shortcommit0}.tar.gz > > %setup -qn raymonad-%{name}-%{commit0} > > The hash used in the URLs is also just seven characters long, perhaps they > have > changed it? I had to deviate quite a bit from > [the > wiki](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/ > SourceURL#Git_Hosting_Services) > so I would assume that the content in the wiki is a bit outdated. If so I > would > happily update them. See the entire commit hash: https://bitbucket.org/raymonad/xss-lock/commits/1e158fb20108058dbd62bd51d8e8c003c0a48717. So %{commit0} should be 1e158fb20108058dbd62bd51d8e8c003c0a48717. In order to make this work (as suggested in the wiki): %setup -qn OWNER-%{name}-%{shortcommit0} %{shortcommit0} has to be defined to the first 12 characters of the commit hash. %setup works now just because %{commit0} is (wrongly) defined to those 12 characters. So you wind up with: %global commit0 1e158fb20108058dbd62bd51d8e8c003c0a48717 %global shortcommit0 %(c=%{commit0}; echo ${c:0:11}) > Then about the whole pre-release thing: The version that I use from git is a > couple commits *after* 0.3.0 and there is no more recent tag in the upstream > repository. Previously I have used xss-lock 0.3.0 on Ubuntu 15.04 and had a > bug > with it, it would not exit when I logged out. The repository contains commits > which suggest that this bug has been addressed but not yet released. > > I have packaged the latest version in git in my Open Build Service home > project > and used for a week now, it seems fine. > > In the sense of xss-lock this should be a post-release version. > > In terms of the Fedora package I assumed that the Fedora package would be a > pre-release. In Debian they upload all the proposed packages with `Release: > 0` > so to speak. As this is not an official package yet, I thought having > `Release: > 0.1` was the thing to do here. As Michael said in comment #11, this is a post-release snapshot because there was already a final 0.3.0 released, so you must follow the Naming Guidelines for Snapshot packages. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages > I have copied the output from `rpmbuild` complaining about unpackaged files > there. In the wiki I read that the use of macros just has to be consistent > but > is not mandatory. Should I now change it back to use the hardcoded paths? Please no. Macros simplify things and there are several good reasons to use then over hardcoded paths. > >> Requires: xcb-util libxcb glib2 > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires > > I read the paragraph there but I am not sure what you want to tell me. > Should I > add some explicit version there? rpmbuild adds those dependencies automatically so there is no need to add them manually in the spec file. Note the rpmlint errors: xss-lock.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency glib2 xss-lock.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libxcb Address these issues and I'll review it again. -- 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