Signatures and checksums are good. Once I extracted the zips, though, I see they have some strange permissions configured. All the directories have a chmod of rw-rw-rw (just like all the files do), but they should be rwxr-xr-x. Example output from zipinfo comparing log4net zip with log4j zip:
Archive: apache-log4j-2.13.3-bin.zip Zip file size: 14581816 bytes, number of entries: 74 drwxr-xr-x 2.0 unx 0 b- stor 20-May-10 12:06 apache-log4j-2.13.3-bin/ -rw-r--r-- 2.0 unx 2888 bl defN 20-May-10 11:56 apache-log4j-2.13.3-bin/RELEASE-NOTES.md ... Archive: apache-log4net-binaries-2.0.12.zip Zip file size: 2154452 bytes, number of entries: 28 drw-rw-rw- 6.3 unx 0 b- stor 20-Oct-18 17:22 net20/ ... -rw-rw-rw- 6.3 unx 262144 b- defN 20-Oct-18 17:22 net20/log4net.dll ... The directories need to be executable to be able to list files from them (Unix/POSIX). I'm not sure how these zip files got these permissions. I see that the previous 2.0.10 release of log4net has the same problem, though. On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 11:03, Davyd McColl <dav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all > > Not much has changed in 2.0.12 except that an issue affecting non-windows > users has been addressed. LOG4NET-652 and LOG4NET-653 both stem from the same > source, wherein the username for the current logging thread was not correctly > retrieved on non-windows platforms and would throw a PlatformNotSupported > error. I was hoping that one of the authors of pull requests to resolve this > would respond to my comments on said pull requests, but it's been a while now > and there's been a user asking when the update would be released, so, as much > as I would have liked the community member commits, I've gone ahead and > applied the logic myself. > > Anyways, 2.0.12 is up for release at > https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.12 > [https://github.com/apache/logging-log4net/releases/tag/rc%2F2.0.12] with > signed artifacts there. Documentation is updated at the staging site -- all > that's left is a sanity check and vote before I can push the nupkg to > nuget.org, which is how most people will consume it. > > Ralph, as far as I understand, I still don't have the ability to push > artifacts to the apache download server, so please could you do so for me? > > Thanks for your time > -d -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
