FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Packaging

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-28-2008, 08:43 PM
Philip Prindeville
 
Default How to handle unversioned upstream tarballs?

I was working on bug 452636 (
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452636 ), and reached an
impasse.


One of my last reviews (from Joe Orton) said:


non-formal review:
> >
> > 4) Source: http://apache.webthing.com/mod_proxy_html/mod_proxy_html.tgz

> > is bad - do upstream not provide versioned URLs?

>
> Unfortunately, they do not.


upstream should be educated then


You'll need to work around that and version the tarball manually, I think this
is covered in the wiki somewhere.



Well, I've (a) tried to get the owners to rename the tarball with an
embedded version number, so far without success, and (b) went looking
through the maintainers wiki on how to handle cases where the tarball
isn't versioned (and it must be done manually) but didn't find it.


Can someone point me in the correct direction?

Thanks,

-Philip


--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 08-28-2008, 10:49 PM
Jason L Tibbitts III
 
Default How to handle unversioned upstream tarballs?

>>>>> "PP" == Philip Prindeville <philipp_subx@redfish-solutions.com> 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<

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 08-29-2008, 01:57 AM
Philip Prindeville
 
Default How to handle unversioned upstream tarballs?

Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:

"PP" == Philip Prindeville <philipp_subx@redfish-solutions.com> 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.


-Philip

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 08-29-2008, 02:20 AM
Jason L Tibbitts III
 
Default How to handle unversioned upstream tarballs?

>>>>> "PP" == Philip Prindeville <philipp_subx@redfish-solutions.com> writes:

PP> Yeah, about that... they don't seem to be using CVS upstream...
PP> If they're using SVN, then they don't publish a public interface.

I was talking about our CVS. You can do "make new-sources" with a new
tarball that has the same name and the system won't be confused
(because it differentiates by checksum).

The bottom line is that if upstream doesn't version their tarballs, you
can simply upload them to the buildsys and nothing will break. So its
really your choice as to whether you want to do some sort of local
renaming or not. Personally I wouldn't, since it really doesn't do
much good.

- J<

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 08-29-2008, 07:55 AM
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
 
Default How to handle unversioned upstream tarballs?

On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 21:20 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> The bottom line is that if upstream doesn't version their tarballs, you
> can simply upload them to the buildsys and nothing will break. So its
> really your choice as to whether you want to do some sort of local
> renaming or not. Personally I wouldn't, since it really doesn't do
> much good.

Except when you have different versions of Fedora having different
versions of the package.

--
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet@gmail.com>

PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 08-29-2008, 08:09 AM
Axel Thimm
 
Default How to handle unversioned upstream tarballs?

On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 06:57:03PM -0700, Philip Prindeville wrote:
> Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>>> "PP" == Philip Prindeville <philipp_subx@redfish-solutions.com> 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
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 08-29-2008, 11:55 AM
Jason L Tibbitts III
 
Default How to handle unversioned upstream tarballs?

>>>>> "IV" == Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet@gmail.com> writes:

IV> Except when you have different versions of Fedora having different
IV> versions of the package.

I fail to see what difference that makes. Of course you version the
package itself.

- J<

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 08-29-2008, 12:04 PM
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
 
Default How to handle unversioned upstream tarballs?

On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 06:55 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "IV" == Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet@gmail.com> writes:
>
> IV> Except when you have different versions of Fedora having different
> IV> versions of the package.
>
> I fail to see what difference that makes. Of course you version the
> package itself.

Won't they conflict in the lookaside cache?

--
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet@gmail.com>

PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 08-29-2008, 12:07 PM
Jason L Tibbitts III
 
Default How to handle unversioned upstream tarballs?

>>>>> "IV" == Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet@gmail.com> writes:

IV> Won't they conflict in the lookaside cache?

No. Check my earlier messages in the thread: files in the lookaside
cache are differentiated by checksum.

- J<

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 
Old 08-29-2008, 12:13 PM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default How to handle unversioned upstream tarballs?

On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 09:20:39PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>
> The bottom line is that if upstream doesn't version their tarballs, you
> can simply upload them to the buildsys and nothing will break. So its
> really your choice as to whether you want to do some sort of local
> renaming or not. Personally I wouldn't, since it really doesn't do
> much good.

I think that it is best left to the packager choice, but in my opinion
it helps knowing what source archive is packaged to rename locally and
have the timestamp in package name. The downside is that automatic source
detection, and automatic download doesn't work anymore.

--
Pat

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:49 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org