Feature request: MD5 sums for individual RPM spec source archives

[Jeff Johnson]

tracker

[Joe (joe-redhat-bugs)]

Description of problem:
Feature request: Include checksums for individual source packages in the spec file. When packaged into a source RPM, it is probably not as important. It would be most useful to use with `spectool' to validate a source file downloaded from a URL.

Additional info:

Fink, a Mac OSX packager, has the following format:

Source2: http://chemistry.ucsc.edu/~wgscott/xtal/xtalfink/XCCPJiffy-custom.gz
Source2-MD5: 21568dd2475505929573a3fd452c538f

The MD5 could also just be embedded in a comment if there is not enough interest in creating a formal MD5 tag.

[Joe (joe-redhat-bugs)]

In testing support for file URLs, I found that the "Icon:" tag does not support the URL format. I think it would be better if it did, so that spectool can download it along with the source and patch files.

[Joe (joe-redhat-bugs)]

Here are a few more suggestions based on the OSX Fink package manager, which seem simple enough to just add here rather than create another Bugzilla entry.

Sometimes a source or patch file has an available URL, but the filename is not sufficiently unique. So I propose the following additional tags, each defining a file download URL:

Source[N]-URL:
Patch[N]-URL:
Icon-URL:

These would allow a different local filename, and could be used to prefix source and patch files with the main package name. It also allows for a download that uses an HTTP GET, where the standard %u2p macro will not work.

Fink also has a "Recommends:" tag. It allows a package to define software that it supports, but is not required.

Fink macros allow for access to subpackage names. An uppercase macro maps to the subpackage, and a lowercase macro always maps to the main package. The equivalent for SPEC files would be:
  %{name} == the main package name.
  %{NAME} == the subpackage name; same as %{name} in the main package sections.

[Ville (ville-redhat-bugs)]

Regarding new tag suggestions, the correct place to file them in is the "rpm" component in Bugzilla, or the upstream rpm project facilities/mailing lists, see http://rpm.org/

It seems to me that this bug report already contains more things related to rpm itself rather than rpmdevtools, so I'm reassigning to rpm/rawhide and will follow the discussion.

[Fedora (fedora-redhat-bugs)]

This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database. Reassigning to the new owner of this component.

[Fedora (fedora-redhat-bugs)]

This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 19 development cycle.
Changing version to '19'.

(As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 19 development
cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 19 End Of Life. Thank you.)

More information and reason for this action is here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora19