From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> |
Cc: | dmp <danap(at)ttc-cmc(dot)net>, List <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Packaging of 9.2-1001 source tarball |
Date: | 2012-11-14 03:00:29 |
Message-ID: | 6556.1352862029@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-jdbc |
Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom,
> I've fixed the tar file.
Um ... you just replaced the tar file with another one of the same name?
That's going to cause a lot of confusion.
[ downloads and takes a look... ] What's worse, the contents of the
tarballs aren't the same --- it looks like this is a slightly newer
snapshot than what was in the old tarball. Which means it doesn't
correspond to the sources that were used to build the published jar
files.
I think you've just converted a minor annoyance into a major disaster.
When I package a Red Hat or Fedora package, there are automated
cross-checks that verify that the tarball I provide matches bit-for-bit
what can be downloaded from the upstream URL I claim to have got it
from. I imagine other distros have similar checks. You just broke
that --- as of now, the package I finished making a few hours ago
will fail verification.
I think you should either go back to the previous tarball for now,
or repackage this as a "1002" build. It's too late to be changing
the published tarball for build 1001.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zsolt Kúti | 2012-11-14 10:42:40 | The column name <col> was not found in this ResultSet |
Previous Message | dmp | 2012-11-14 02:39:25 | Re: Packaging of 9.2-1001 source tarball |