Hi Laca,
Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote On 05/03/07 14:47,: >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 have committed *.zip dictionary sources to this location already with Damien's agreement. regards, yuriy >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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/jds-review/attachments/20070503/ee39b2be/attachment.html>
