I think the better implementation is that we have the option for the
local build.
--- SUNWmyspell-dictionary-l10n.spec.orig 2007-05-02
06:48:45.749600000 +0900
+++ SUNWmyspell-dictionary-l10n.spec 2007-05-02 06:29:08.407179000 +0900
@@ -26,5 +26,5 @@
Docdir: %{_datadir}/doc/myspell-dictionary
%if %build_l10n
## English (United States)
-Source: %http_openoffice/en_US.zip
+Source:
%http_openoffice/en_US%{?!_with_download:-2004-06-23}.zip
## Catalan (Spain)
fujiwara
Takao Fujiwara wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I didn't notice the version numbers.
> Those Source locations indicate the community repository directly. If we
> change the arhive names, users cannot download the archive files
> directly, can they?
>
> Probably I think this is a first time that community does not have the
> version number in the source filenames.
>
> The following is the top page to download .zip files(webcache.uk may be
> needed for the proxy).
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Dictionaries
> Community notes the modified date in the web page only.
>
> Basically I think repackaging is a bad idea to maintain the spec.
> My suggestion is to just rename the .zip files.
>
> # mv fr_FR.zip fr_FR-2002-06-08.zip
>
> SourceN: http://foo/../fr_FR-2002-06-08.zip
>
> What do you think?
>
> 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
>>>
>>
>
