From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Loic Dachary Subject: verifying rpm packages for v0.80.11 Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 07:47:27 +0200 Message-ID: <55E68D6F.5050506@dachary.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="OpVI4rNO71LQU6lAxlvhAHXuJVuQmi4rk" Return-path: Received: from mail2.dachary.org ([91.121.57.175]:47933 "EHLO smtp.dmail.dachary.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751110AbbIBFre (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Sep 2015 01:47:34 -0400 Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Nathan Cutler Cc: Ceph Development This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --OpVI4rNO71LQU6lAxlvhAHXuJVuQmi4rk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Nathan, In order to verify that the ceph.spec.in change do not introduce a regres= sion in v0.80.11, I scheduled an upgrade/firefly suite on CentOS 6 ( http= ://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11644#upgrade) and a ceph-deploy suite on all = supported distributions (because we did not do it before http://tracker.c= eph.com/issues/11644#ceph-deploy).=20 https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/5217 https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/5224 https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/5225 Cheers --=20 Lo=C3=AFc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre --OpVI4rNO71LQU6lAxlvhAHXuJVuQmi4rk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlXmjW8ACgkQ8dLMyEl6F23+AQCgnArRxL7/hW0dlaJMN4bHhgkb XekAoLNJtPL/3y0IXoOlmqmAM9YUIbFx =D8wu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --OpVI4rNO71LQU6lAxlvhAHXuJVuQmi4rk--