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.