Hi,
Before importing the following tetex packages SRPMS - tetex-bytefield, tetex-xcolor, tetex-pgf. tetex-beamer - I would like to pose a question regarding the source file version control done by/in the CVS side cache (make upload FILES=...):
Description of the problem: The source tarballs for the above tetex packages are all created on the fly by the DANTE CTAN master mirror. The main problem is that CTAN only has the latest version of every package and that the tarball generated has no version in its name (see for example: http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/RPMS/tetex-bytefield.spec).
Although there is a possibility of finding versioned tarballs for some of the above packages, the problem remains for other CTAN Latex packages - no author homepage with versioned tarballs.
Question: Should I manually had a version to the DANTE generated tarball? Or can the CVS accept a new tarball with the same name when a package update occurs (check thread below).
Review request thread: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-March/msg00869.html
Thanks in advance, jpo -- José Pedro Oliveira * mailto: jpo@di.uminho.pt * http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/~jpo * * gpg fingerprint = F9B6 8D87 859D 1C94 48F0 84C0 9749 9EB5 91BD 851B *
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 23:29:37 +0000, José Pedro Oliveira wrote:
Before importing the following tetex packages SRPMS - tetex-bytefield, tetex-xcolor, tetex-pgf. tetex-beamer - I would like to pose a question regarding the source file version control done by/in the CVS side cache (make upload FILES=...):
Description of the problem: The source tarballs for the above tetex packages are all created on the fly by the DANTE CTAN master mirror. The main problem is that CTAN only has the latest version of every package and that the tarball generated has no version in its name (see for example: http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo/software/RPMS/tetex-bytefield.spec).
Although there is a possibility of finding versioned tarballs for some of the above packages, the problem remains for other CTAN Latex packages - no author homepage with versioned tarballs.
Question: Should I manually had a version to the DANTE generated tarball? Or can the CVS accept a new tarball with the same name when a package update occurs
The lookaside cache can accept file changes which result in a changed MD5 fingerprint. I recommened, however, that you be more explicit with file naming and insert the date of download into the otherwise non-versioned tarball file name, e.g. bytefield-20030523.tar.gz instead of just bytefield.tar.gz
Michael Schwendt wrote:
The lookaside cache can accept file changes which result in a changed MD5 fingerprint. I recommened, however, that you be more explicit with file naming and insert the date of download into the otherwise non-versioned tarball file name, e.g. bytefield-20030523.tar.gz instead of just bytefield.tar.gz
Any objections if I also had the LaTeX package version e.g bytefield-1.2-20030523.tar.gz ?
jpo -- José Pedro Oliveira * mailto: jpo@di.uminho.pt * http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/~jpo * * gpg fingerprint = F9B6 8D87 859D 1C94 48F0 84C0 9749 9EB5 91BD 851B *
José Pedro Oliveira wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
The lookaside cache can accept file changes which result in a changed MD5 fingerprint. I recommened, however, that you be more explicit with file naming and insert the date of download into the otherwise non-versioned tarball file name, e.g. bytefield-20030523.tar.gz instead of just bytefield.tar.gz
Any objections if I also had the LaTeX package version e.g bytefield-1.2-20030523.tar.gz ?
Arghhh!
s/had/add/
jpo -- José Pedro Oliveira * mailto: jpo@di.uminho.pt * http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/~jpo * * gpg fingerprint = F9B6 8D87 859D 1C94 48F0 84C0 9749 9EB5 91BD 851B *
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 00:32:47 +0000, José Pedro Oliveira wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
The lookaside cache can accept file changes which result in a changed MD5 fingerprint. I recommened, however, that you be more explicit with file naming and insert the date of download into the otherwise non-versioned tarball file name, e.g. bytefield-20030523.tar.gz instead of just bytefield.tar.gz
Any objections if I also had the LaTeX package version e.g bytefield-1.2-20030523.tar.gz ?
If you think you need that version in order to distinguish the tarballs even further, use it. ;)
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Jose Pedro Oliveira -
Michael Schwendt