On 12/13/2016 03:34 PM, Phil Wyett wrote:> On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 14:16 -0800, Alice Wonder wrote: >> I'm getting spec files from centos git which is really convenient when >> the related source is easy to find. But some things - e.g. from a spec file >> >> # How to create the source tarball: >> # >> # git clone git://git.fedorahosted.org/git/python-rhsm.git/ >> # cd client/python-rhsm >> # tito build --tag python-rhsm-$VERSION-$RELEASE --tgz >> >> Never used tito before, so I install it and try, and rather than giving >> me the source package I need - it gives me a python traceback >> complaining that I haven't configured some things properly. >> >> Seems a lot of the software distribution world is getting overly complex >> with an expectation that the end user who needs to exercise his FLOSS >> rights has to use git or nodejs or for php composer or whatever just to >> get what use to be available with no more complexity than choosing >> tar.gz or tar.bz2 or .zip if the dev was Windows. >> >> Whatever happened to KISS and why can't source tarballs be distributed >> as source tarballs? >> >> Back when I was a Fedora packager - the packaging guidelines would >> reject a package of the Source tarball wasn't a URL and if the timestamp >> on the tarball in the src.rpm didn't match upstream even if the checksum >> was identical. >> >> Guess those days are gone. >> >> /rant > > Hi, > > Not seen this one before, but don't play with much python. The SPEC > really should just refer too a URL too a compressed archive as the > packages home site supplies them. > > https://github.com/candlepin/python-rhsm/releases > > Regards > > PhilI went to the github and it doesn't have a packaged release that matches the version. I managed to find it in the build system logs, but its just weird. If I recall, formerly for a tarball to be different than what was on upstream, it had to have a legal reason (e.g. patents) and a script in the sources that could turn upstream tarball into the version used.
On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 15:39 -0800, Alice Wonder wrote:> On 12/13/2016 03:34 PM, Phil Wyett wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 14:16 -0800, Alice Wonder wrote: > >> I'm getting spec files from centos git which is really convenient when > >> the related source is easy to find. But some things - e.g. from a spec file > >> > >> # How to create the source tarball: > >> # > >> # git clone git://git.fedorahosted.org/git/python-rhsm.git/ > >> # cd client/python-rhsm > >> # tito build --tag python-rhsm-$VERSION-$RELEASE --tgz > >> > >> Never used tito before, so I install it and try, and rather than giving > >> me the source package I need - it gives me a python traceback > >> complaining that I haven't configured some things properly. > >> > >> Seems a lot of the software distribution world is getting overly complex > >> with an expectation that the end user who needs to exercise his FLOSS > >> rights has to use git or nodejs or for php composer or whatever just to > >> get what use to be available with no more complexity than choosing > >> tar.gz or tar.bz2 or .zip if the dev was Windows. > >> > >> Whatever happened to KISS and why can't source tarballs be distributed > >> as source tarballs? > >> > >> Back when I was a Fedora packager - the packaging guidelines would > >> reject a package of the Source tarball wasn't a URL and if the timestamp > >> on the tarball in the src.rpm didn't match upstream even if the checksum > >> was identical. > >> > >> Guess those days are gone. > >> > >> /rant > > > > Hi, > > > > Not seen this one before, but don't play with much python. The SPEC > > really should just refer too a URL too a compressed archive as the > > packages home site supplies them. > > > > https://github.com/candlepin/python-rhsm/releases > > > > Regards > > > > Phil > > I went to the github and it doesn't have a packaged release that matches > the version. I managed to find it in the build system logs, but its just > weird. > > If I recall, formerly for a tarball to be different than what was on > upstream, it had to have a legal reason (e.g. patents) and a script in > the sources that could turn upstream tarball into the version used. >Hi, Out of interest, which version do you refer to? Regards Phil -- Google+: https://plus.google.com/+PhilWyett Blog: https://philwyett-hemi.blogspot.co.uk/ GitLab: https://gitlab.com/philwyett_hemi/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20161213/498deb46/attachment-0001.sig>
On 12/13/2016 03:57 PM, Phil Wyett wrote:> On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 15:39 -0800, Alice Wonder wrote: >> On 12/13/2016 03:34 PM, Phil Wyett wrote: >>> On Tue, 2016-12-13 at 14:16 -0800, Alice Wonder wrote: >>>> I'm getting spec files from centos git which is really convenient when >>>> the related source is easy to find. But some things - e.g. from a spec file >>>> >>>> # How to create the source tarball: >>>> # >>>> # git clone git://git.fedorahosted.org/git/python-rhsm.git/ >>>> # cd client/python-rhsm >>>> # tito build --tag python-rhsm-$VERSION-$RELEASE --tgz >>>> >>>> Never used tito before, so I install it and try, and rather than giving >>>> me the source package I need - it gives me a python traceback >>>> complaining that I haven't configured some things properly. >>>> >>>> Seems a lot of the software distribution world is getting overly complex >>>> with an expectation that the end user who needs to exercise his FLOSS >>>> rights has to use git or nodejs or for php composer or whatever just to >>>> get what use to be available with no more complexity than choosing >>>> tar.gz or tar.bz2 or .zip if the dev was Windows. >>>> >>>> Whatever happened to KISS and why can't source tarballs be distributed >>>> as source tarballs? >>>> >>>> Back when I was a Fedora packager - the packaging guidelines would >>>> reject a package of the Source tarball wasn't a URL and if the timestamp >>>> on the tarball in the src.rpm didn't match upstream even if the checksum >>>> was identical. >>>> >>>> Guess those days are gone. >>>> >>>> /rant >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Not seen this one before, but don't play with much python. The SPEC >>> really should just refer too a URL too a compressed archive as the >>> packages home site supplies them. >>> >>> https://github.com/candlepin/python-rhsm/releases >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Phil >> >> I went to the github and it doesn't have a packaged release that matches >> the version. I managed to find it in the build system logs, but its just >> weird. >> >> If I recall, formerly for a tarball to be different than what was on >> upstream, it had to have a legal reason (e.g. patents) and a script in >> the sources that could turn upstream tarball into the version used. >> > > Hi, > > Out of interest, which version do you refer to? > > Regards > > Phil > >1.17.9 is the version in CentOS 7.3 and what I needed (and found on a build server)