You're welcome ;) These are trunk packages - they aren't build from the same tag as 1.1.0. I don't think it is correct to mix them into release repos. Sorry.
Cos On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 01:47AM, Evans Ye wrote: > Cos and Roman > Thanks for pushing hard on the 1.1 release! > The PPC packages are available here: > https://ci.bigtop.apache.org/view/ppc64le/job/Bigtop-trunk-packages-ppc64le > > Asanjar > I guess we can not easily put together PPC and the other packages together > in same release job because ubuntu-15.04-ppc64le require a ppc slave, right? > > > 2016-02-17 13:40 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]>: > > > Two things: > > - the packages for ppc 1.1.0 aren't available anywhere. Looks like the job > > you have put together failed. Sorry, I am half across the world and > > dealing > > with a lot right now, so I can not spare any time to fix it > > - you can go ahead and make the announcement. Binary artifacts aren't a > > part > > of the official release. The official release is done a available from > > http://www.apache.org/dist/bigtop/bigtop-1.1.0/ > > > > Packages will be posted later - not big of a deal > > > > Cos > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 06:54PM, MrAsanjar . wrote: > > > Roman, thanks man. Let me know when repo will be updated with ppc > > packages. > > > I am at Spark Summit East and would like to make an announcement as soon > > as > > > you give the thumbs up. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Olaf Flebbe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > thanks for all! I tested some random packages from the centos-7 repo. > > > > Works like a charm. > > > > > > > > The debian-8 GPG signature can be downloaded from the gpg keyserver, > > works > > > > for me. > > > > I suggest to add a KEYS file with Romans Signing Key 13971DA39475BD5D > > into > > > > http://<mirror>/apache/bigtop/bigtop-1.1.0/ > > > > > > > > But anyway, great job, we did it! > > > > > > > > Olaf > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 16.02.2016 um 17:42 schrieb Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > > Weird indeed. I checked for myself and it was there. Anyway - thanks > > a > > > > bunch > > > > > for your help! > > > > > > > > > > Guys, if you can do some quick sanity tests in addition to what I > > have > > > > done > > > > > earlier - it'd be great! Right after we can do the official > > announcement > > > > of > > > > > the release. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Cos > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 08:34AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > > > >> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >>> Looks like the repos were published earlier today by Roman (thanks > > > > dude!) > > > > >>> A couple of small nits: > > > > >>> - we still need to add repos/ directory into the dist's > > release/bigtop > > > > (like > > > > >>> we did before) > > > > >>> I have added the repos/ into the release area. > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks man! I've pushed the signatures. > > > > >> > > > > >>> - the signing key 9475bd5d doesn't seem to be added to the KEYS, > > nor > > > > is a > > > > >>> part of the repos/ (obviously) > > > > >> > > > > >> This is odd, the key is definitely in the canonical file. See for > > > > yourself: > > > > >> > > > > >> $ rm -rf /tmp/12345 ; mkdir /tmp/12345 > > > > >> $ curl https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/bigtop/KEYS > > > > > /tmp/12345/KEYS > > > > >> $ GPG_HOME=/tmp/12345 gpg --import /tmp/12345/KEYS > > > > >> gpg: key 3ADD02D6: "Andrew Bayer (CODE SIGNING KEY) > > > > >> <[email protected]>" not changed > > > > >> gpg: key 9475BD5D: "Roman V Shaposhnik (CODE SIGNING KEY) > > > > >> <[email protected]>" not changed > > > > >> gpg: key 1F27E622: "Konstantin I Boudnik (Cos) <[email protected]>" > > not > > > > changed > > > > >> gpg: Total number processed: 3 > > > > >> gpg: unchanged: 3 > > > > >> > > > > >>> I have tried to deploy and quickly test centos and ubuntu in-docker > > > > clusters > > > > >>> and the basic setup seems to be working fine. > > > > >> > > > > >> Cool! Lets see if this key issue is transient on your part. > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks, > > > > >> Roman. > > > > > > > > > >
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
