On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 06:57:03PM -0700, Philip Prindeville wrote: > Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >>>>>>> "PP" == Philip Prindeville <philipp_subx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>>>>> >> >> PP> Well, I've (a) tried to get the owners to rename the tarball with >> PP> an embedded version number, so far without success, and (b) went >> PP> looking through the maintainers wiki on how to handle cases where >> PP> the tarball isn't versioned (and it must be done manually) but >> PP> didn't find it. >> >> You just deal with it the hard way. CVS (or the sources mechanism, at >> least) has no problems dealing with unversioned upstream source. The >> burden on the packager is higher but it's not really all that >> difficult to deal with. It does make upstream source comparisons >> mostly useless, though, so we lose an important means of verification >> but this isn't something the maintainer can solve. >> >> If you asked upstream and they don't care then you've done what you >> can do. >> >> - J< >> > > Yeah, about that... they don't seem to be using CVS upstream... If > they're using SVN, then they don't publish a public interface. If you are after a date to use as a version number, then use the mtime of the tarball. Get it with wget -N to preserve timestamps (curl has similar options). If the download is broken timestamp-wise (like it is for asterisk/zaptel etc. for example), then use the date of the newest file in the tarball. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpMHhIh5SA2x.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
