On Friday, 29 January 2016 16:39:02 UTC, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> This problem was caused by running sage-fix-pkg-checksums on 7.1.beta0
> with a newer version of cliquer in upstream/
>
> So, it's perhaps not really a bug but it's annoying that there are 2
> cliquer tarballs in upstream/ with
On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 2:24:43 AM UTC+1, leif wrote:
>
> If the tarballs' basenames match, the (relevant parts of their) contents
> should be identical. IMHO.
>
But the correct function of our tooling should not rely on whether or not
we use that social convention. We define a clear
Volker Braun wrote:
> Really its a bug in the sage-fix-pkg-checksums scripts; It just randomly
> mucks around with filenames and it fails here. The files
> cliquer-1.21.tar.gz and cliquer-1.21.tar.bz2 can be distinguished and
> there is no reason for why we don't.
If the tarballs' basenames match,
Really its a bug in the sage-fix-pkg-checksums scripts; It just randomly
mucks around with filenames and it fails here. The files
cliquer-1.21.tar.gz and cliquer-1.21.tar.bz2 can be distinguished and there
is no reason for why we don't.
On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 5:39:02 PM UTC+1, Jeroen D
This problem was caused by running sage-fix-pkg-checksums on 7.1.beta0
with a newer version of cliquer in upstream/
So, it's perhaps not really a bug but it's annoying that there are 2
cliquer tarballs in upstream/ with the same version number. I think the
version number of cliquer should have
cliquer-1.21.p3
Setting up build directory for cliquer-1.21.p3
Finished set up
[...]
Applying patches...
Configuring...
./spkg-install: lin
FWIW, passes ptestlong with no errors on Debian testing running on
CoreI7+16 GB RAM.
HTH,
--
Emmanuel Charpentier
Le jeudi 28 janvier 2016 21:42:54 UTC+1, Volker Braun a écrit :
>
> As always, you can get the latest beta version from the "develop" git
> branch. Alternatively, the self-containe
