On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 17:20 +0900, Takao Fujiwara wrote:
> Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 19:58 +0900, Takao Fujiwara wrote:
> >> Let's say the next deadline is 20:00 today @Dubline time.
> >> The AIs are to:
> >> - replace http://.../foo.zip with
> >> http://.../foo%{?!_with_download:-YYYY-MM-DD}.zip to follow
> >> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Dictionaries
> >> - remove en_US.aff since GNOME applications cannot use it.
> >> - deliver all documents in _doc dir beside README* files.
> >
> > Hmm... Keep in mind that the default behaviour should "just
> > work". I.e., people shouldn't need to use --with-download
> > in order to get an url that works.
>
> I'ld like to hack pkgtool. When we give "download" argument, it defines
> "_with_download".
>
> Do you have any ideas?
> If I added '$defaults->define ('_with_download', '1');' or 'process_with
> ("with", "download");' in pkgtoo.pl, it does not define the parameter.
I agree with Damien that this is not a good idea.
--download should download whatever the url is and not rewrite the
url to something that can be downloaded.
> > If we change the file names, we should upload the renamed
> > files to dlc.sun.com and set the Source urls to point there.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand this exactlly.
> Could you please explain your concerns with detail?
> The two files foo.zip and foo-versoin.zip are the same files and
> checksums are same.
> The zip%{?!_with_download:-date}.zip means the .spec works with both
> foo.zip and foo-version.zip.
> All I understand is the RE needs the version numbers for the internal
> builds.
Damien explained this too.
We have space here:
http://dlc.sun.com/osol/jds/downloads/extras/
I suggest we create a subdir under this, e.g. myspell and
upload the versioned tarballs there.
Then set the Source urls in the spec file to that url.
Laca
> > But hey, isn't openoffice.org another project related to Sun?
> > Can we just ask them to use versioned tarballs like any well
> > behaved software?
>
> Yes, you're right but it seems currently StarOffice team does not work
> on the dict packages when we discussed so lively and we GNOME l10n team
> has generates this package. It seems we need to convince each maintainer
> by dict language.
> At the moment, I think the _with_download parameter is the instant
> solution and it takes a long span to covince each maintainer.
>
> fujiwara
>
> >
> > Laca
> >
> >> If you have no time, I'll do that.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> fujiwara
> >>
> >> Takao Fujiwara wrote:
> >>> I wonder why you could change the owner. I think the implementation of
> >>> 80% are comming from myself and note I have been on vacation since
> >>> Saturday.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> fujiwara
> >>>
> >>> Yuriy Kuznetsov wrote:
> >>>> Dermot,
> >>>>
> >>>> Dermot McCluskey wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Yuriy,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Sorces of dictionaries were taken from community and their locations
> >>>>>> are correct in Source section of SUNWmyspell-dictionary.spec on the
> >>>>>> moment of creation of SUNWmyspell-dictionary-* pkgs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So my question is, are these external files likely to be overwritten
> >>>>> by their communities, so that, for example, we could not
> >>>>> reproduce a specific historical build because only the new
> >>>>> source tarballs are now available?
> >>>> We thought it would be a good idea to keep names as they are in
> >>>> community.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Will you be putting copies of these tarballs in the internal
> >>>>> tarball repository (I don't see them there currently)?
> >>>> Yes.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Maybe you could unzip and rezip them with a version when doing so?
> >>>> We probably can do this way.
> >>>> Fujiwara, what do you think about this issue ?
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also, copyright year (and owner?) in the header seem incorrect.
> >>>> Made correction(file attached).
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> yuriy
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - Dermot
> >>>>>
> >
>
