[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Rolling rc3 - tarball issue

From: Max Bowsher <maxb1_at_ukf.net>
Date: 2005-11-21 19:14:10 CET

Hash: SHA1

Daniel Berlin wrote:
> Apparently, we need some official resolution on the issue of what to
> name the tarballs, and whether to keep the double tarball (deps and
> nodeps) regime.
> I'm +1 on naming the "deps" tarball as regular, and make "nodeps" be the
> suffixed one.
> I'm +1 on dropping the nodeps tarball entirely.
> apr, neon, etc are not ubiquitous enough that this is worth it. I know
> nobody who builds from nodeps, even those who *do* have it installed
> (which includes me).

I do! I haven't done a with-deps build in years!

However, I think that rc1 and rc2 have shown that the increased
imposition on testers of having to do 12-way verification (2 deps-types
* 2 fs * 3 ra), instead of 6-way verification (2 fs * 3 ra) is
intolerable - as evidenced by no single rc1 or rc2 tarball getting 3 sigs.

In the interests of getting a 1.3 release out before 2006, I think we
should maintain the status quo of previous releases (i.e. drop the
nodeps tarball entirely) for 1.3.x.

Long term, I think we should be thinking about dropping deps completely,
but enough people seem to be using the deps right now that that time is
not now.


Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Cygwin)


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Nov 21 19:19:32 2005

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.