sfdk produces rpm names not accepted in harbour [answered]

Question

1

sfdk produces rpm names not accepted in harbour [answered]

asked 2020-06-07 20:43:48 +0200

attah

11007 ●106 ●127 ●123

updated 2020-06-07 21:06:11 +0200

I built my app with sfdk, and it produces a package name that is not accepted in store/Harbour.

Is there some option to get conformant names that I'm missing, or can Harbour be made more allowing?

This is the resulting filename:

harbour-seaprint-0.5.RC1+master.20200607155847.6c1b33e+bytestream.cbcf861-1.armv7hl.rpm

It was tagged 0.5-RC1 for/by GitHub, whereas the rpm spec says 0.5-1, so it seems to be ignoring the spec, and adding the sha sums for the repo and submodules.While nice, it is rather annoying to not have it readily accepted for uploading.

Another observation: "bytestream" isn't a direct submodule, but a submodule of the submodule.

edit retag flag offensive reopen delete

The question has been closed for the following reason "the question is answered, an answer was accepted" by molan
close date 2020-06-13 13:31:07.142591

Accepted Answer

1

answered 2020-06-08 11:09:53 +0200

Ville Nummela
111 ●3 ●7

admin

This is because the checked out versions of your submodule(s) don't match the versions you have committed/tagged.

I did some experimenting with your repo. Checking out master and building from that gives the package name like you described. Checking out tag 0.5-RC1 and building from that gives harbour-seaprint-0.5.RC1-1.i486.rpm, and tagging master with 0.5-RC2 and building from that gives harbour-seaprint-0.5.RC2-1.i486.rpm, as expected.

edit flag offensive delete publish link

Comments

Okay, thanks! Didn't even realize that submodule had desynced, so that explains half of it. Getting sha sums in the name is useful but wasn't super obvious how to work with. I would have expected the spec to apply, but i do like driving the versioning from actual data instead.

attah ( 2020-06-08 19:05:06 +0200 )edit

sfdk produces rpm names not accepted in harbour [answered]

The question has been closed for the following reason "the question is answered, an answer was accepted" by molan
close date 2020-06-13 13:31:07.142591

1 Answer

Comments

Question tools

Stats

sfdk produces rpm names not accepted in harbour [answered]

The question has been closed for the following reason "the question is answered, an answer was accepted" by molan close date 2020-06-13 13:31:07.142591

1 Answer

Comments

Question tools

Public thread

Stats

The question has been closed for the following reason "the question is answered, an answer was accepted" by molan
close date 2020-06-13 13:31:07.142591