xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfsprogs/xfsdump release process

To: Felix Blyakher <felixb@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfsprogs/xfsdump release process
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:25:43 -0500
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs-oss" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <DCA2D97E-F9A4-4A9E-BC39-CFFF1D0AD2CD@xxxxxxx>
Organization: wh0rd.org
References: <200902221348.51905.vapier@xxxxxxxxxx> <20090223072207.GA4112@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <DCA2D97E-F9A4-4A9E-BC39-CFFF1D0AD2CD@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: KMail/1.11.0 (Linux/2.6.28; KDE/4.2.0; x86_64; ; )
On Monday 23 February 2009 11:10:44 Felix Blyakher wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2009, at 1:22 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:00:45PM -0600, Felix Blyakher wrote:
> >> Mike, you're absolutely right here. The config files got into the
> >> dmapi tarball by mistake, sorry for this. I verified that neither
> >> xfsprogs nor xfsdump have any extra files. New (clean) dmapi tarball
> >> will be on the oss site shortly.
> >
> > Please don't overwrite already uploaded tarballs.  Let's make a 2.2.10
> > release instead.  We might just use the Makepkgs script for it after
> > fixing it.  See the question and patch on the list for xfsprogs for
> > that, haven't checked dmapi works right yet.
>
> Didn't think that removing the unneeded files from the package
> justifies the version bump. It doesn't change anything for people
> who already downloaded unclean dmapi tarballs.
> Though, if opinion on this matter is that strong, I'd definitely
> bump the version, and will use updated Makepkgs.

the problem is for people (like Gentoo) who already fetched the tarball, 
hashed it, and posted the resulting URL/hash to their packaging systems ...
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>