From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n1NJaxmj106938 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:36:59 -0600 Message-ID: <49A2F933.3090308@sandeen.net> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:29:55 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: xfsprogs/xfsdump release process References: <200902221348.51905.vapier@gentoo.org> <20090223072207.GA4112@infradead.org> <200902231125.44076.vapier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Felix Blyakher Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Mike Frysinger , xfs-oss Felix Blyakher wrote: > On Feb 23, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> 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 ... > > OK, that's definitely convincing. Just FWIW, Fedora does similar. Changing md5sums on a released, versioned tarball could set off all sorts of worries for distributions, in general... -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs