[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TRAFODION-2005?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15322885#comment-15322885
]
Steve Varnau commented on TRAFODION-2005:
-----------------------------------------
This scheme has issues due to the way of building binaries from the official
release source code. We cannot just move forward one of the binaries from the
previous release. It should always be built from the official code. Just the
act of re-building will cause new checksums, even if code is functionally the
same.
That means this scheme would cause us to have binary package named the same
from two releases, indicating they are functionally the same. Those binaries
with same name would have different checksums, and report different release
(sqvers). So this scheme would seem to add more confusion in the package names.
> Packaging for patch releases should indicate which packages are changed
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TRAFODION-2005
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TRAFODION-2005
> Project: Apache Trafodion
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Build Infrastructure
> Reporter: Steve Varnau
> Assignee: Steve Varnau
> Priority: Minor
>
> For major and minor releases, the release version number should be the same
> for every packaged component (installer, server, clients). But for patch
> releases, it would be good to know if only clients changed, only server, or
> both.
> We should always package everything, so that for 2.0.3 release, all packages
> are provided, but individual packages would have specific patch level when
> last changed. So I know whether to reinstall server side if upgrading 2.0.0
> or 2.0.2.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
