meejah <mee...@meejah.ca> writes: > https://tahoe-lafs.org/downloads/tahoe-lafs-1.16.0rc1.tar.gz > https://tahoe-lafs.org/downloads/tahoe-lafs-1.16.0rc1.tar.gz.fon-asc > https://tahoe-lafs.org/downloads/tahoe-lafs-1.16.0rc1.tar.gz.meejah-asc
Not a big deal, but last time there was .tar.gz and .tar.bz2 and this time only .tar.gz. I picked bz2 because it's slightly smaller. That's a minor roadbump for packaging, so it would be good for there to be a plan for formats and to be consistent, and even RCs should be consistent since it's a dry run all the way through publish/packaging. I don't care what the plan is as long as it is reasonable unix and not .zip, so .tar.gz and .tar.bz2 are fine. I see that rc1 gz is much smaller than the rc0 gz, and I don't understand why. I don't need to understand as long as the dev team does and thinks it is ok :-) tahoe-lafs-1.16.0rc0.tar.gz 26-Aug-2021 19:04 12786346 tahoe-lafs-1.16.0rc1.tar.gz 06-Oct-2021 05:28 5865222 After updating versions and suffix, my draft 1.16.0 package built (with no change to set of installed files from rc0) and the resulting tahoe command runs, on NetBSD 9 amd64 with python 3.7.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list tahoe-dev@lists.tahoe-lafs.org https://lists.tahoe-lafs.org/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
