All done. > On Oct 14, 2017, at 1:42 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> wrote: > > Jim Jagielski wrote: >> IMO, no need to redo the hash files. We can adjust the script >> post-release to simply use basename, or whatever we want. > > It's really a cosmetic issue, without any effects on the ongoing vote, but > indeed the instructions we give to users assume that the .md5 and .sha256 > files are in the form > > e0b12ff2a19c18c24db844767c56d27e > *Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.4_Linux_x86-64_install-rpm_it.tar.gz > > and not (current version) > > e0b12ff2a19c18c24db844767c56d27e > *./binaries/it/Apache_OpenOffice_4.1.4_Linux_x86-64_install-rpm_it.tar.gz > > So no need to regenerate them at all, but a quick pass of sed over the RC5 > tree should rectify this and make it easier for users to test the hashes. > > I can take care of it if needed; but if someone else is going to do it, even > better! > > Regards, > Andrea. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
