Re: [fossil-users] Download v1.36 Linux x86 tar.gz actually contains 64bit binary

[K. Fossil user]

1/ Dear Joerg,
I really appreciate your stuff in this Fossil mailing list. However it seems 
that you don't read that much what I've written...
> « [...] it's been said before. Please keep your aggressive attitude and 
> platitudes to yourself. You are just annoying and distracting people [...] »

I give my point but it is clear that you haven't read them...
This said why don't you explain to me why I could not find any checksums here ? 
(1.36)

Fossil Download Checksums
http://www.hwaci.com/fossil_download_checksums.html


a) For the record, This is the Fossil official checksum website as I understand 
it.b) I was not the first who have noticed this. I was thinking that it is a 
simple bug for few hours.It for a long time that nothing happens, so I decided 
to talk about it.
c) You know that the day I will see a 1.37 rock solid, I would look at 
evrything especially what is relevant for everyone :checksums, 32/64 bits for 
Linux/Windows, compilation, etc.
 
Have a nice day Joerg. (It's time to me to talk to Will)

2/ Mister Will Parsons I presume ?
> « [...] Can we all now just stop replying to his [censored by K.], or better 
> yet, have him removed from the mailing list? »

Note that I censored some part of your talk to avoid issues...
a) I love it if you dare to say that to Linus Torvalds, Patrick (Slackware), 
etc. even if they are clearly wrong.And of course I don't even tell to you that 
you can see that behavior with some more "normal" people in a mailing list.Why 
aren't those guys expelled far outside the universe ? Mystery...

b) Explain where I am wrong so I could see what I could do for you, if I 
wish.Which part ? SLQLite ? Fossil ? Marketing (I don't want to talk about 
something you don't know) ? release ? What is it ?

c) I didn't know that a dot invalid domain is a serious one.Let me know what is 
it about your website.
d) Sorry but NOW I don't have time for you. Tomorrow I guess.

e) Dear Will, I forgot : Sorry about that.Here, I do use Webmail, but as I 
understand most guys do use a MUA.
Why don't you Mr Parsons do a simple thing for us :create a filter where "K. 
Fossil user" should be thrown in the dust-bin of your MUA.
e1) You will avoid me to see your stuff
e2) You will avoid people to read our stuffs...
e3) You won't deserve anything from me so I will be glad if you do that ... 
PLEASE Mr Parsons (We don't care if it is your name).

 Regards

K.

  De : Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@bec.de>
 À : fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org 
 Envoyé le : Mardi 15 novembre 2016 10h46
 Objet : Re: [fossil-users] Download v1.36 Linux x86 tar.gz actually contains 
64bit binary
   
Dear "K. Fossil user",
it's been said before. Please keep your aggressive attitude and
platitudes to yourself. You are just annoying and distracting people.

Joerg
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users


   ___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Download v1.36 Linux x86 tar.gz actually contains 64bit binary

[Will Parsons]

On Tuesday, 15 Nov 2016  5:46 AM -0500, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> Dear "K. Fossil user",
> it's been said before. Please keep your aggressive attitude and
> platitudes to yourself. You are just annoying and distracting people.

It should be pretty clear by now that "K. Fossil user" is a troll.
Can we all now just stop replying to his crap, or better yet, have
him removed from the mailing list?

-- 
Will

___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Download v1.36 Linux x86 tar.gz actually contains 64bit binary

[Joerg Sonnenberger]

Dear "K. Fossil user",
it's been said before. Please keep your aggressive attitude and
platitudes to yourself. You are just annoying and distracting people.

Joerg
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Download v1.36 Linux x86 tar.gz actually contains 64bit binary

[K. Fossil user]

Hi,
1/ > « [...] in other words fossil was happy enough at that time to release 
1.36 [etc...] »

Software that doesn't have any bugs, is utopia.At least here (in my country), 
we don't dream ...
2/ > « [...] Quite frankly creating a new fossil version each time a new 
sqlite3 version (even minor) is out could lead to a loop [etc...] »

Seriously ? Nope.Fossil needs SQLite to run appropriately, SQLite could exist 
without Fossil. We can use Git (Yeah the evil for some Fossil user).
SO,a) SQLite was 3.15.0 and now is 3.15.1, which should mean a bug fix, even a 
minor one.b) Fossil must use the SQLite that is supposed without bugs, which is 
... 3.15.1.c) We can conclude that we could wait for 10 days...That is the 
point, not the loop discuss which is not relevant here. We could create 1.36.1 
then 1.36.2 then 1.36.3, I will stay with SQlite 3.15.1 with Fossil 1.36.0 
INSIDE sqlite.org if I do wish that.The main component of Fossil is SQLite.

> « [...] Beside that, could you try to discuss technical stuff without being 
> such hostile? »

People try to talk : why don't you try ?Someone is clearly hostile ? Try to 
demonstrate that such behavior is not relevant if you can...

  
Best Regards

K.

  De : Luca Ferrari <fluca1...@infinito.it>
 À : Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> 
 Envoyé le : Dimanche 13 novembre 2016 10h58
 Objet : Re: [fossil-users] Download v1.36 Linux x86 tar.gz actually contains 
64bit binary
   
On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 1:24 AM, K. Fossil user
<ticketpersonnal-fos...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Explain me why a SO serious project could not wait for 10 days or if it is
> not that possible (I don't see why ??), why don't Fossil create a 1.36.1?

Sorry pal, my guess is that the latest sqlite3 was not required by
fossil 1.36, in other words fossil was happy enough at that time to
release 1.36.
Quite frankly creating a new fossil version each time a new sqlite3
version (even minor) is out could lead to a loop, since sqlite3 needs
fossil to manage the code base and so each time a new fossil version
is out due to a new sqlite3 version, a new sqlite3 version should be
released leading to a new fossil version...

Beside that, could you try to discuss technical stuff without being
such hostile?

Luca
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users


   ___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Download v1.36 Linux x86 tar.gz actually contains 64bit binary

[K. Fossil user]

> « [...] I have no idea what you think I wrote. [etc...] »


Ah ?No the answer was for Luca not for you, Scott ... ! :-D

Of, course, little software may not need Gantt software, however it is better 
to use such a tool.I will answer all the rest when I could but not now...
 
Best Regards

K.

  De : Scott Robison <sc...@casaderobison.com>
 À : Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> 
 Envoyé le : Dimanche 13 novembre 2016 18h38
 Objet : Re: [fossil-users] Download v1.36 Linux x86 tar.gz actually contains 
64bit binary
   
On Nov 11, 2016 5:28 PM, "K. Fossil user" <ticketpersonnal-fos...@yahoo.fr> 
wrote:
>
> Ah you don't understand again what I've said ...
>
> 1/ Fossil and SQLite work together, and to be clear, the same guy work for 
> both projects.
> I was even told that the AIM of Fossil is to help SQLite.
> Do you agree at least with these ?Yes, fossil & sqlite have a beneficial 
> symbiotic relationship.> 2/ When you plan things you are supposed to create a 
> Gantt chart or something which help any project.
> For instance, something serious not something else.
> You've said it : Oct 24 Fossil, Nov 04 SQLite.
> I AM SO happy that you've wrote it.I have no idea what you think I wrote. 
> Gantt charts are not requirements for successful software. I've written some 
> very successful software projects that have been recognized with industry 
> awards without ever using a gantt chart. DRH makes new fossil releases 
> periodically for the community but he generally suggests using the tip of 
> trunk as he usually does himself.> Explain me why a SO serious project could 
> not wait for 10 days or if it is not that possible (I don't see why ??), why 
> don't Fossil create a 1.36.1?Fossil has never used semantic versioning. I 
> don't understand the reason for your continued emphasis on 10 days. Perhaps 
> the reason is that people are imperfect, or that they have different 
> priorities than you, or that they have simply started blocking your emails 
> due to the in your face "I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is a 
> fool" style attitude that comes across in your messages. No, that is not a 
> quote from you, but it is how you come across.There are ways to communicate 
> that invite people to see your point of view. There are other ways to 
> communicate that make people dislike your message no matter how correct it 
> might be.>
> [too much] Pride ? Huh ?
>
> My point was : Why do Fossil show a 1.36 FEW days BEFORE SQLite.
> (FEW days IS the key of MY point of view before yours)I believe I addressed 
> this above.>
>  
> Best Regards
>
> K.
>
>
> ____
> De : Luca Ferrari <fluca1...@infinito.it>
>
> À : Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> 
> Envoyé le : Vendredi 11 novembre 2016 11h38
> Objet : Re: [fossil-users] Download v1.36 Linux x86 tar.gz actually contains 
> 64bit binary
>
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 4:16 PM, K. Fossil user
> <ticketpersonnal-fos...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> > Beyond that, I don't understand why SQlite is not 3.15.1 ...
>
> Seems to me that SQLite 3.15.1 was released on november the 4th, while
> fossil 1.36 was compiled on october the 24th.
>
> Anyway, I cannot find checksums for 1.36 here
> <http://www.hwaci.com/fossil_download_checksums.html>.
>
> Luca
>
> ___
> fossil-users mailing list
> fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
> http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
>
>
>
> ___
> fossil-users mailing list
> fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
> http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
>
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users


   ___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Download v1.36 Linux x86 tar.gz actually contains 64bit binary

[Scott Robison]

On Nov 11, 2016 5:28 PM, "K. Fossil user" <ticketpersonnal-fos...@yahoo.fr>
wrote:
>
> Ah you don't understand again what I've said ...
>
> 1/ Fossil and SQLite work together, and to be clear, the same guy work
for both projects.
> I was even told that the AIM of Fossil is to help SQLite.
> Do you agree at least with these ?

Yes, fossil & sqlite have a beneficial symbiotic relationship.

> 2/ When you plan things you are supposed to create a Gantt chart or
something which help any project.
> For instance, something serious not something else.
> You've said it : Oct 24 Fossil, Nov 04 SQLite.
> I AM SO happy that you've wrote it.

I have no idea what you think I wrote. Gantt charts are not requirements
for successful software. I've written some very successful software
projects that have been recognized with industry awards without ever using
a gantt chart. DRH makes new fossil releases periodically for the community
but he generally suggests using the tip of trunk as he usually does himself.

> Explain me why a SO serious project could not wait for 10 days or if it
is not that possible (I don't see why ??), why don't Fossil create a 1.36.1?

Fossil has never used semantic versioning. I don't understand the reason
for your continued emphasis on 10 days. Perhaps the reason is that people
are imperfect, or that they have different priorities than you, or that
they have simply started blocking your emails due to the in your face "I'm
right and anyone who disagrees with me is a fool" style attitude that comes
across in your messages. No, that is not a quote from you, but it is how
you come across.

There are ways to communicate that invite people to see your point of view.
There are other ways to communicate that make people dislike your message
no matter how correct it might be.

>
> [too much] Pride ? Huh ?
>
> My point was : Why do Fossil show a 1.36 FEW days BEFORE SQLite.
> (FEW days IS the key of MY point of view before yours)

I believe I addressed this above.

>
>
> Best Regards
>
> K.
>
>
> 
> De : Luca Ferrari <fluca1...@infinito.it>
>
> À : Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org>
> Envoyé le : Vendredi 11 novembre 2016 11h38
> Objet : Re: [fossil-users] Download v1.36 Linux x86 tar.gz actually
contains 64bit binary
>
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 4:16 PM, K. Fossil user
> <ticketpersonnal-fos...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> > Beyond that, I don't understand why SQlite is not 3.15.1 ...
>
> Seems to me that SQLite 3.15.1 was released on november the 4th, while
> fossil 1.36 was compiled on october the 24th.
>
> Anyway, I cannot find checksums for 1.36 here
> <http://www.hwaci.com/fossil_download_checksums.html>.
>
> Luca
>
> ___
> fossil-users mailing list
> fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
> http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
>
>
>
> ___
> fossil-users mailing list
> fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
> http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
>
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Download v1.36 Linux x86 tar.gz actually contains 64bit binary

[Luca Ferrari]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 1:24 AM, K. Fossil user
 wrote:
> Explain me why a SO serious project could not wait for 10 days or if it is
> not that possible (I don't see why ??), why don't Fossil create a 1.36.1?

Sorry pal, my guess is that the latest sqlite3 was not required by
fossil 1.36, in other words fossil was happy enough at that time to
release 1.36.
Quite frankly creating a new fossil version each time a new sqlite3
version (even minor) is out could lead to a loop, since sqlite3 needs
fossil to manage the code base and so each time a new fossil version
is out due to a new sqlite3 version, a new sqlite3 version should be
released leading to a new fossil version...

Beside that, could you try to discuss technical stuff without being
such hostile?

Luca
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Download v1.36 Linux x86 tar.gz actually contains 64bit binary

[K. Fossil user]

Ah you don't understand again what I've said ...
1/ Fossil and SQLite work together, and to be clear, the same guy work for both 
projects.I was even told that the AIM of Fossil is to help SQLite.Do you agree 
at least with these ?
2/ When you plan things you are supposed to create a Gantt chart or something 
which help any project.For instance, something serious not something 
else.You've said it : Oct 24 Fossil, Nov 04 SQLite.I AM SO happy that you've 
wrote it.
Explain me why a SO serious project could not wait for 10 days or if it is not 
that possible (I don't see why ??), why don't Fossil create a 1.36.1?
[too much] Pride ? Huh ?
My point was : Why do Fossil show a 1.36 FEW days BEFORE SQLite.
(FEW days IS the key of MY point of view before yours)
 Best Regards

K.

  De : Luca Ferrari <fluca1...@infinito.it>
 À : Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> 
 Envoyé le : Vendredi 11 novembre 2016 11h38
 Objet : Re: [fossil-users] Download v1.36 Linux x86 tar.gz actually contains 
64bit binary
   
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 4:16 PM, K. Fossil user
<ticketpersonnal-fos...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Beyond that, I don't understand why SQlite is not 3.15.1 ...

Seems to me that SQLite 3.15.1 was released on november the 4th, while
fossil 1.36 was compiled on october the 24th.

Anyway, I cannot find checksums for 1.36 here
<http://www.hwaci.com/fossil_download_checksums.html>.

Luca
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users


   ___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Download v1.36 Linux x86 tar.gz actually contains 64bit binary

[Luca Ferrari]

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 4:16 PM, K. Fossil user
 wrote:
> Beyond that, I don't understand why SQlite is not 3.15.1 ...

Seems to me that SQLite 3.15.1 was released on november the 4th, while
fossil 1.36 was compiled on october the 24th.

Anyway, I cannot find checksums for 1.36 here
.

Luca
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users

Re: [fossil-users] Download v1.36 Linux x86 tar.gz actually contains 64bit binary

[K. Fossil user]

Hi,
Yes, you should not give something dynamic to people ...I guess that it is 64 
bits because they are not aware by the fact that they should compile for both 
architectures (32 bits  AND 64 bits binary)?
I've recommended to the Fossil team that they should create a 1.36.1 release 
because most of the time there are some glitches that may suggest people that 
Fossil is not that serious.
Unfortunately, I was right...

Beyond that, I don't understand why SQlite is not 3.15.1 ... 
 
Best Regards

K.

  De : Artur Shepilko 
 À : Fossil SCM user's discussion  
 Envoyé le : Mercredi 9 novembre 2016 2h42
 Objet : [fossil-users] Download v1.36 Linux x86 tar.gz actually contains 64bit 
binary
   
Just happened to download v1.36 Linux binary off Fossil page to a
Linux x86-32bit box and surprisingly it would not execute
http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/uv/download/fossil-linux-x86-1.36.tar.gz

Turns out it's actually a 64bit binary:
      file ./fossil
      ./fossil: ELF 64-bit LSB  executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV),
dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.32,
BuildID[sha1]=abeae887e354f3300aa097e9380ce8acead4711d, stripped

      ./fossil version -v
      This is fossil version 1.36 [c24373934d] 2016-10-24 14:59:33 UTC
      Compiled on Oct 24 2016 17:40:35 using gcc-5.4.0 20160609 (64-bit)
      SQLite 3.15.0 2016-10-14 10:20:30 707875582f
      Schema version 2015-01-24
      zlib 1.2.8, loaded 1.2.8
      SSL (OpenSSL 1.0.1f 6 Jan 2014)
      UNICODE_COMMAND_LINE
      DYNAMIC_BUILD

Not sure if this is a new way going forward, if it is, then certianly
this should be noted somewhere on the download page.

Previous releases (v1.35 and v1.34) are x86 32bit, also they are STATIC_BUILD.

This brings up another issue, on 64-bit Linux a staticly-linked 32-bit
fossil binary may not be able to properly bind to 64-bit gcc
run-times, producing error like the following:

      ./fossil-1.35-x86-32 clone http://fossil-scm.org fossil.fossil
      getaddrinfo() fails: Name or service not known
      Clone done, sent: 0  received: 0  ip:
      server returned an error - clone aborted

So, perhaps, there's a need to post BOTH Linux x84 binaries 32-bit and
64-bit. This way users may not need to scratch heads then tweak and
build Fossil themeselves.
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users


   ___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users