Thanks, Eric.. I'll get the signatures in there, too and look into astats.. Suggestions on the form of the package name? e.g.
traffic_ops-incubator-1.8.0-RC1-xxxx.xxxx.x86_64.rpm ? -dan On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 6:46 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Dan- > I haven’t looked at the RPMs yet, but I think we also need to put up a > package for astats. > > A few other things: > - Package name should have “incubating” in it > - Need signatures directly on the release packages (i.e. 1 detached sig per > RPM/SRPM), see these: > https://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html#valid > https://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html#basics > > > On Nov 8, 2016, at 5:38 PM, Dan Kirkwood > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hi Leif, we are aware of that and want to get to that point. We've > traditionally been Centos-based, and the rpm building is already > implemented. That's intended as a nicety to make testing the RC > easier.. I, for one, would love to eliminate building rpm's... > > Dan > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Leif Hedstrom > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On Nov 8, 2016, at 3:27 PM, Dan Kirkwood > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Hello All, > > I've prepared a release for v1.8.0 (RC1) > > Changes since 1.7.0: > https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/compare/RELEASE-1.7.0...RELEASE-1.8.0-RC1 > > This corresponds to git: > Hash: bebf63eedce2d3912752c65b0d52d739f820e0ac > Tag: RELEASE-1.8.0-RC1 > > > Hmmm, quick question: Why RPMs? That seems pretty restrictive, in that > someone could not download / test / look at any of this without having an OS > distro that supports RPM… It’d be preferable (IMO at least) to have source > artifacts as regular tar-balls (gzip / bzip2’d). > > Cheers, > > — Leif > >
