On 03/24/2012 03:13 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 03:54:13PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> Since this is a 1.6.x release there are -dep tarballs
>> which should also be signed by those who test them.
>> I've run a test build with these dependencies on a Debian Linux system.
> I made a slight mistake by putting APR 1.4.6 into the -deps tarball
> while the 1.6.x test suite isn't prepared to deal with the APR hash
> ordering changes.
> Should we re-roll the deps tarball with APR 1.4.5? I'd call this a
> packaging bug and re-use the existing version number. Nobody but
> myself has signed the -deps tarball yet.
Don't we have a hard and fast policy on this? Version numbers are
cheap. Also, do we need to have matching the svn and deps tarball
version numbers, so we could bump the deps but leave svn alone?
BTW, any chance of getting the new svnadmin verify work into 1.6.x? I
was thinking it may be worth cutting .19 just to get that in as people
may want to easily know if they have an issue with their repositories.
Received on 2012-03-24 21:17:52 CET