On Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 11:43, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 11:23:30AM -0400, Shane Turner wrote:
> >> Should I open a bug report to have the packages regenerated,
> > No. Releases are never regenerated. That would invalidate signatures
> > developers sent for the release.[*]
> > We'll have to figure out the source of the problem and then try
> > to avoid it in future releases.
> It may be related to the sed problem we were having in the 1.7 RC
> series. Apparently one of scripts relied upon GNU sed which wasn't
> installed on people.apache.org. I had been using a custom install of
> it, but I thought Daniel had fixed the offending script to not require
> GNU sed. 1.7.2 represents the first release in which I relied upon
> the system sed, and not my custom one.
However, SVN_VER_REVISION on the 1.7.2 tag is wrong.
> I *thought* I'd verified the header file prior to posting the release
> for signing, but apparently not. :(
> > [*] These signatures are important to the release process because having
> > multiple signatures proofs the release wasn't made by a single individual
> > but by the Apache Subversion Project Member Committee which is legally
> > part of the ASF. This protects individual developers from legal attacks
> > because the ASF needs to be attacked instead.
> "Project *Management* Committee" :)
> uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
Received on 2011-12-07 18:53:41 CET