Thanks for the explanation. I'm ok to remove "_with_download". I understood: - renaming filenames is applied to the case that the source files are not available in the URL. - solid Source lines are expected.
Thanks, fujiwara Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote: > On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 23:43 +0900, Takao Fujiwara wrote: >> Probably I need more general rules. >> >> Do you mean we always put source files in dlc.sun.com whenever the files >> just don't have the version number in the filenames without the >> dependencies of the license? > > Well, the general rule is that we use dlc.sun.com for source > downloads when the source tarball that is not (or not > reliably) available from the original download site. > We also use dlc.sun.com for sources that originate from Sun. > >> If we use dlc.sun.com instead of the original URL, how do users download >> the original source files in community? > > That's the point: dlc.sun.com is on the internet so it's > accessible both inside and outside Sun. > > Laca > >> fujiwara >> >> Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote: >>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >
