Hello,
> > rversion=2.1
> > subversion=400
> >
> >
> > Spec file extract:
> > Version: %{rversion}.%{subversion}
> >
> > Source: ./%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
>
> IMO, it would be more clear to separate strictly between upstream version
> (= tarball version) and Fedora packa
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:10:31 -0500, Jean-Marc wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Hoping to be wrong.
>
> Today I was working on my package after a long time,
> I upgraded from version 2.1-320 to 2.1-400.
>
> I didn't "fedpkg new-sources" and only updated
> the spec file to be 2.1
Hello,
> > mandatory. I pushed the tar file in
> > same time as spec to GIT, koji was smart enough to forgive
> > my error.
> >
> > So I can work one way or the other...
> > right?
>
> While it will technically work, uploading tarballs and other binaries
> to git is a bad idea. git behaves very
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Jean-Marc Pigeon wrote:
> Ok, this means having an uptodate "sources" file is not
> mandatory. I pushed the tar file in
> same time as spec to GIT, koji was smart enough to forgive
> my error.
>
> So I can work one way or the other...
> right?
While it will techn
Hello,
On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 21:16 -0500, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 21:05 -0500, Jean-Marc Pigeon wrote:
> > Let be straight and simple (package name doesn't
> > matter here)
> >
> > 1) Spec file say version: 1.2.3
> > 2) sources file say tar file: 1.0.0
> >
On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 21:05 -0500, Jean-Marc Pigeon wrote:
> Let be straight and simple (package name doesn't
> matter here)
>
> 1) Spec file say version: 1.2.3
> 2) sources file say tar file: 1.0.0
> "sources" as included in git and generated
> by fedpkg
Hello,
On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 16:16 -0800, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Thomas Spura
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:46:34 -0500
> > Jean-Marc Pigeon wrote:
> >> rversion=2.1
> >> subversion=400
> >>
> >>
> >> Spec file extract:
> >> Ver
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Thomas Spura wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:46:34 -0500
> Jean-Marc Pigeon wrote:
>> rversion=2.1
>> subversion=400
>>
>>
>> Spec file extract:
>> Version: %{rversion}.%{subversion}
>> Release: 2%{?locmark}
>> Source: ./%{na
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:46:34 -0500
Jean-Marc Pigeon wrote:
> rversion=2.1
> subversion=400
>
>
> Spec file extract:
> Version: %{rversion}.%{subversion}
> Release: 2%{?locmark}
> Source: ./%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
>
> So the potential for disasters
On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 16:27 -0700, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
> On 01/27/2011 04:10 PM, Jean-Marc Pigeon wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Hoping to be wrong.
> >
> > Today I was working on my package after a long time,
> > I upgraded from version 2.1-320 to 2.1-400.
> >
> > I didn't "fedpk
On 01/27/2011 04:10 PM, Jean-Marc Pigeon wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Hoping to be wrong.
>
> Today I was working on my package after a long time,
> I upgraded from version 2.1-320 to 2.1-400.
>
> I didn't "fedpkg new-sources" and only updated
> the spec file to be 2.1-400 (sou
Hello,
Hoping to be wrong.
Today I was working on my package after a long time,
I upgraded from version 2.1-320 to 2.1-400.
I didn't "fedpkg new-sources" and only updated
the spec file to be 2.1-400 (sources file was
still referring to 2.1-320).
12 matches
Mail list logo
