On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 02:40:06PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 22:57 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 01:45:25PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > Hey all,
> > >
> > > Here's my first draft of a SourceURL guideline. This tries to
> > > encapsulate current practices but a few new things had to be added
> > > related to SRPMs where no upstream source exists. This draft will
> > > probably need some touching up as I whipped it up pretty quickly but
> > > hopefully it captures the spirit of what we're trying to achieve.
> >
> > Looks OK. But since we're commenting on source origin could somewhere
> > a kind request ("SHOULD") to (srpm-)package upstream sources/patches
> > with original timestamps where possible be embedded?
>
> That sounds like a good best practice. It sounds like a separate item
> the way things are currently phrased. Do you have some wording to fit
> it in, or do you just want to throw it in a separate recommendation.
since it's a weak suggestion and only a subsentence it would be nice
to interweave in the part that discusses unmodified upstream
sources. I agree the topic "URL" is not exactly describing timestamps :)
Maybe the general topic could be abstracted to "Dealing with sources
and patches" or similar, so it wouldn't be completely out of the water.
As a phrasing I would suggest "Whenever possible try to maintain
timestamps of sources or patches".
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpcUrjTVQlcM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
