On Sunday 28 February 2010, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote: >On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Gene Heskett <[email protected]> wrote: >> I am sorry Dustin, but the permissions problem alluded to earlier does >> not seem to be fixed yet so the old link still shows the 20100131 >> versions as the newest, and the 'download tarball' buttons on all the >> sourceforge pages at the link above, while bringing up a requester asking >> what should firefox do with this file, with the save button already >> checked, do nothing when clicking on the ok. No file is downloaded. > >If I understand, you're talking about the "Download GNU Tarball" link >on the SourceForge ViewVC pages. The link works for me, but even so >it's not a very effective way to download snapshots: the resulting >tarballs will not be the usual "distribution" tarballs, as they have >not had their ./autogen scripts run. If you'd like, I can help you >modify your test scripts to build straight from subversion instead of >from snapshots. > >> Breakage that continues for over 3 weeks now, does lead to questions, and >> the replies seem to intend to placate, but have done nothing of substance >> to restore our ability to continue our near daily testing of the bleeding >> edge. > >I don't mean to placate - we screwed up. But to be fair, you only >brought it up at 9pm on a Friday! I'm sure it'll be sorted out soon.
I used to see more updates on the weekends, and figured you both had other, buys the bread, duties during the week. >I don't know exactly how Jean-Louis makes the snapshot tarballs, but >I've made a distribution tarball built from the latest subversion, >which should be similar, available here: > http://djmitche.s3.amazonaws.com/amanda-2.6.2alpha.tar.gz >Let me know if you have any trouble making it work. Just one niggle. It was not named internally in the tarball with the snapshot date. My build & install script depends on that, so now I have a 2.6.2alpha install that when it comes time to do a cleanup of old versions, something I do about monthly, it will need a careful check of its file dates else I might remove the wrong library or some such. My script also cleans out any srcs it finds, and without the snapshot date, doesn't leave an old version behind so I have a ready made, backup to the previous tree left in /home/amanda that to recover to it, is a simple cd into the older directory followed by a make install as root. I tried to rename the tarball but that resulted in the tar.gz's deletion so I had to go get it 3 times. It did install, and amcheck ran normally, so we'll see how tonight's run goes. Needless to say, if I do this again, I'll overwrite this one, which isn't a 'Good Thing(TM)' so I will now rename that tree with today's date to prevent that. >> And that of course makes me wonder if I am indeed the only person doing >> any test builds and actual use of that test build at all. I certainly >> hope not. > >I hope not, too! Certainly the more people who test Amanda, the more >quickly and effectively we will catch and solve bugs. I'm a big >believer in testing, both automated and manual. It *is* disconcerting >that nobody (not even you?) noticed this for, as you say, three weeks. > With luck, this thread will encourage some new folks to begin >regularly testing Amanda, especially the upcoming release. > >"Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" [1] > >Dustin > >[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus'_Law My test scripts are attached. Quite simple. Not even a kilobyte combined. Syntax is: ./newmanada amandatarball-snapshotdate (without the .tar.gz) (as root) -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) <|Rain|> with sane code, maybe I could figure out the renderer :) <LordHavoc> rain: I'd probably be the one writing the renderer <|Rain|> well, er, uh
newmanda
Description: application/shellscript
gh.cf
Description: application/shellscript
