On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 02:53:30PM +0530, Parag N(पराग़) wrote: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:40 AM, Till Maas <opensource@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 09:55:25PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 21:35:27 +0200, Till Maas wrote: > > > > > > I noticed that several packages do not contain a URL tag and > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#tags > > > > does not require it. IMHO it would be nicer to have a valid URL tag for > > > > all packages. Therefore I want to propose to make it mandatory. > > > > > > > > What are your opinions? > > > > > > Both the package submitter and the reviewer, who approved the > > > package, should be pointed at: > > > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Use_rpmlint > > > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines > > > | > > > | MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms > > > | the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. > > > > > > rpmlint warns about a missing URL tag. > > > > I did not check why it happened. The packages from the following SRPM do > > not seem to have the URL tag: > > > > adjtimex-1.29-6.fc19.src.rpm > > arptables_jf-0.0.8-32.fc19.src.rpm > > autofs-5.0.7-14.fc19.src.rpm > > basesystem-10.0-8.fc19.src.rpm > > > > why should this package need a source or URL? A URL makes it obvious where the package comes from and does not hurt. I would use https://fedoraproject.org/ here so everyone can see from "rpm -qi basesystem" that it comes from Fedora. > > bitmap-fonts-0.3-20.fc19.src.rpm > > > > We have seen issues with font upstream sources. When packages got added > into Fedora they of course used to have correct and valid upstream source > as well as URL. But as time goes these URL seems to vanish. > > bootparamd-0.17-38.fc19.src.rpm > > checkpolicy-2.1.12-3.fc19.src.rpm > > > > Looks like now source is also not able to be downloaded > > > > chkconfig-1.3.60-3.fc19.src.rpm > > > > This looks like not requested any fedorahosted trac wiki, so there looks no > URL > > color-filesystem-1-12.fc19.src.rpm > > I would prefer to have at least a dead URL than no URL at all in the rpm -qi output. This is at least one pointer in the right direction and is less painful than to have to first checkout the SPEC to see where the Source0 points to. > This is a filesystem package so don't think any source or URL will exists > for it IMHO for packages without upstream the URL should be https://fedoraproject.org/ > > fontmatrix-0.9.99-11.r1218.fc19.src.rpm > > > > Does your script checks for actual URL lines in SPEC that got commented? > The reason I have purposefully commented URL line is because upstream was > dead and I want to keep url for my reference as it was committed in initial > release. Do you got any recommendations for fixing this issue? I do not yet have recommendations, because I first wanted to find out what the consensus is. I would prefer to for example check whether a copy is available at archive.org and link there. If it is not, then still the original URL is more helpful than having none at all, because it only means that one needs to download the SPEC to find out, that the URL does not work. Nevertheless a hint in the SPEC to indicate that it is known that the URL does not work (preferable with a timestamp) is a good idea and helps to later verification of valid URLs. My script just checked the contents of the URL tag in binary RPMs. > fonts-KOI8-R-1.0-17.fc19.src.rpm > > > > This is very old package in Fedora and whatever I can see about this > package, it never saw any URL and used sources from some website's download > space. That reminds me its merge review is still open as there is no trace > of source. > > > > freeze-2.5.0-15.fc19.src.rpm > > > > This is also old package with source hosted at http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/. > Can then this use URL as http://www.ibiblio.org ?? > > generic-release-19-2.src.rpm > > > > This looks have its own upstream not hosted anywhere. > > gnome-icon-theme-3.8.2-1.fc19.src.rpm > > gnome-icon-theme-extras-3.6.2-2.fc19.src.rpm > > gnome-icon-theme-symbolic-3.8.2.2-1.fc19.src.rpm > > gnome-python2-desktop-2.32.0-14.fc19.src.rpm > > google-croscore-fonts-1.23.0-2.fc19.src.rpm > > > > I have still not found any URL for this Google fonts project. If there is no normal URL available, I would use the Sources URL. I do not comment on the other examples, because they seem to be already covered by the previous examples. My suggestion would be: - Packages must have a URL tag - If possible, the URL should be valid - If the package is completely created by Fedora, use https://fedoraproject.org - If there is no upstream web page, use the Source URL, or, if the web server allows directory listings, specify the directory of the Source URL - If the original URL does not work, try an archive.org one and add a comment to the SPEC explaining when it was noticed that the URL does not work - If archive.org does not work, use the last known URL and add a comment An additional hack would be to add an achor tag to URLs that are known to not work anymore, such as the following: "http://example.com/#Fedora:+does+not+work,+no+new+URL+known"; > We can uncomment the dead URL in spec files but then what to do if someone > reports bug saying URL is not working? Close it as NOTABUG or WONTFIX? WONTFIX or if it exists use CANTFIX. You can then link the bugzilla entry in the SPEC. However, these are only suggestions. But I find it annoying if "rpm -qi" cannot explain where a package comes from. Regards Till -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
