On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 08:24:32PM +0200, Sander Hoentjen wrote: > On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 11:02 -0400, Youness Alaoui wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 02:44:46PM +0200, Sander Hoentjen wrote: > > > On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 22:54 -0400, Youness Alaoui wrote: > > > > Humm.. but why in the world would you put it as active ? > > > Because the packagers can then get it more easily > > they should be able to get it with the svn export and don't tell me a > > linux package maintainer doesn't know how to use a 'svn export ... ' > > command, even n00b can do that... > > For Fedora (and I guess for more distro's?) part of the requirements is > that the md5sum of the tarball in the package matches the md5sum of the > upstream tarball. This means the package can only be created from the > official released tarball. (Yes if you have a good reason you can say > why you don't use a released tarball, like only cvs/svn version is > working properly)
well, a 'svn export http....tags/Release.../' will give you the same md5sum as the official tarball since it's created the same way.. I'm not asking for packagers to use the 'svn version' but rather use the 'svn command' to get their package... anyways, that's what I think, but then again, you might be right and the md5sum is not the same (who knows why.. different 'tar' executable versions?) and it would be a hassle to explain each time... but anyways, you are right, the .tar.gz should be made available ASAP, but don't forget all that timeline I wrote (which btw, I'm still wondering why I took 10:00 as a base:S), if we make the release 'hidden' with the .tar.gz, 1 hour later, we get our binaries in, and 2 days later (because of mirrors) we put the whole thing as 'active' (maybe even before, just don't notify the users and update news until 2 days later), so it's the same for the packagers if they get the .tar.gz available at 10:00 or at 11:15... but anyways, this is useless talk since if we can provide binaries in one hour, then we probably won't mind having only the tarball active for an hour... > > > > > > also, don't forget, what packagers you want to notify ? > > > The official disto packagers (like me, but i am a bad example because i > > > am also a dev) > > oh yeah, but is it our job to notify them or is it their job to follow > > up with the packages they maintain ? also, when we release, in > > sourceforge there is a button that we can press which will notify all > > 'listeners' who are waiting for an update of the package... so package > > maintainers should be listening for it and we'll announce it to everyone > > this way with SF system anyways... > > Yes, that is a good way to notify the packagers, we shouldn't forget to > press this button though, that is my point. You can't expect packagers > to have a look at all their packages home pages every day to see if a > new version is released.. AFA I'm concerned, I wouldn't forget it.. I mean, the button is pretty clear and visible, and noone should forget it.. but you reminded me that we have a 'what to do in release time' wiki page, maybe if it's not already there, it should be added ASAP so we're sure not to forget... but you're right, and I don't expect packagers to check everyday... and yes, I also agree with you, we should notify them to make it easier for them (but only because we're nice people:) )... what I mean is "do our shit, we don't CARE about distro packagers.. but we'll still notify them because we're nice" instead of what was said before "we should notify the packagers and wait for the packages to be created and the distro repos to be up to date before we release" > > > > > > in theory, it > > > > would go as : > > > > 10:00 : decide to release > > > > 10:15 : tag the release, export and create tarball > > > > 10:30 : someone on windows launches a script that creates the > > > > windows installer > > > > 10:45 : upload to SF and create the release version > > > > 10:55 : 'makeinstaller' and create the AP release > > > > 11:00 : Jerome finished creating the mac binaries (he had 45 minutes > > > > already) > > > > 11:05 : we have the AP, windows and Mac binaries uploaded, we set the > > > > release as active > > > > 11:15 : we finished setting up the news page and updating everything > > > > that has to be updated... > > > But (almost) none of the mirrors work yet. > > > > yeah true, but anyways, what I meant was that we don't need to wait > > days/weeks before we can release, we'll wait a few days for the mirrors > > to sync, but it's not as critical as waiting 1 month for packages to be > > created > > > We agree here > > > > > > > > you see, we need 1h15 to do all that, there is no 'announce it to > > > > packagers', > > > Don't forget a lot of linux users just update their system when new > > > updates arrive, and those are done by packagers > > > > > > > > yes, and are we part of the team of FC5 ? or debian ? or gentoo ? no, it > > is not our job, if a distribution is not good enough to keep up to date > > versions in its repositories, then it's not our problem. > > I'm not against you, you are right and we both know it, what I'm trying > > to say is that it's not our responsability, it's the distro's. > > well i am part of the fedora team :P > But you are right, it is their responsibility, but we can still make > their life a bit easier by providing the source tarball as soon as > possible. (Indirectly we make our own life easier because we won't have > questions like: it has been 3 weeks since amsn version X is released, > when will my distro Y finally have this version?) > I'm not talking about you :p and what you said is true and I just answered it also in the previous paragraph. no more talk needed or something still unclear ? I know we both hate lengthy threads! :) KKRT ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Amsn-devel mailing list Amsn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amsn-devel
