On Wed, Dec 7, 2011, at 11:43, Hyrum K Wright wrote: > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 11:23:30AM -0400, Shane Turner wrote: > >> Should I open a bug report to have the packages regenerated, > > > > No. Releases are never regenerated. That would invalidate signatures > > developers sent for the release.[*] > > > > We'll have to figure out the source of the problem and then try > > to avoid it in future releases. > > It may be related to the sed problem we were having in the 1.7 RC > series. Apparently one of scripts relied upon GNU sed which wasn't > installed on people.apache.org. I had been using a custom install of > it, but I thought Daniel had fixed the offending script to not require > GNU sed. 1.7.2 represents the first release in which I relied upon > the system sed, and not my custom one. >
r1159741 However, SVN_VER_REVISION on the 1.7.2 tag is wrong. > I *thought* I'd verified the header file prior to posting the release > for signing, but apparently not. :( > > > [*] These signatures are important to the release process because having > > multiple signatures proofs the release wasn't made by a single individual > > but by the Apache Subversion Project Member Committee which is legally > > part of the ASF. This protects individual developers from legal attacks > > because the ASF needs to be attacked instead. > > "Project *Management* Committee" :) > > -Hyrum > > > -- > > uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy > http://www.uberSVN.com/ >
