I think we need to include a source tarball that contains the project name
and "incubating" (e.g. traffic_control_incubating_1.8.0_source.tar.gz).
We can also include the RPMs but we should note that they are for
convenience only and therefore they shouldnt need incubating in the name.

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 9:13 AM, Dan Kirkwood <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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:dang
> [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:dan
> [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
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to