Theo de Raadt:
> wrote:
>> Anonymous writes:
>>> Otto Moerbeek:
>>>> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 03:13:00PM +0000, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>> Here too:
>>>> Does it matter? It is very common for publications to be dated in the
>>>> future. 
>>>>    -Otto
>>> No, it's not common, neither for software releases nor for texts
>>> published online (blogposts, fiction, etc). Maybe you're talking about
>>> some niche. And yes, it matters because it's confusing: I opened the
>>> front page soon after the release but was in doubt whether it's for real
>>> because of the date.
>> Well I'm not an author, editor, publisher or printer but I'm fairly sure
>> nobody's ever gone from "I'm going to write a book" to "this book has been
>> printed and is already on the shelves" in less than 24 hours, so
>> publishing "in advance" like this makes total sense.
>> A bit weird but luckily I'm not a complete fucking moron so I'm able to
>> work out that when something says "released* on [future date]" that time
>> travel was not invented while I wasn't looking and that a week here or
>> there just doesn't matter.
>> People pointing out spelling mistakes have more utility than this thread.
> Looking closer, the release directory contains root.mail which is dated
> May 1.  That file is also contained in the base set for each
> architecture, which is hashed and signed.  Sometimes tar'd, hashed, and
> signed.  There are also many binaries and files throughout the release
> which aren't date May 1.  It is a pretty unkempt state of affairs.
> Obviously to repair some of these issues, we should change the date in
> that file (and some other files also) and re-roll all the release
> builds.  Starting now.  Which will take some time.  Sadly, those
> repaired files will miss May 1, which is sure to elicit new complaints.
> Ironic isn't it?  Just-in-time is difficult in the real world.
> I suggest the OP learns to let it go.  Or visiting a clinic for some
> therapy, in most countries this is government subsidized.
> The observant among you will have noticed that most errata+syspatch go
> out a day early also.  We've got a good justification for that though --
> we are pandering to folk on the early side of the dateline.  You can
> conclude the 6.5 release was made available on-time, as we are pandering
> to people on the early side of the weekline.  I'll probably pander to
> someone else for the 6.6 release.
> I'm late, I'm late! For a very important date! No time to say `hello,
> goodbye,' I'm late, I'm late, I'm late!
The reason for concern is that if the date is wrong then the
infrastructure used to roll out the release has a bug which can have
whatever consequences so rushing to download is unwise. But yes, I see
that nothing has changed since the 70s, same moronic attitude towards
people confused by Unix shit. At least you are funny morons, I give you

Reply via email to