db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew McIntyre <mcintyr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] release
Date Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:01:40 GMT

On Oct 27, 2005, at 9:21 AM, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:

> Andrew McIntyre wrote:
>> As for the linefeeds, I think the correct solution is to fix up the
>> line feeds for the tars and not the zips using Ant's <FixCRLF>  
>> task.  I
>> believe that for shell-emulation environments on Windows that the
>> linefeeds should still be CRLF, not LF, but could somebody confirm  
>> that?
> That seems to be heading down a path of different versions for  
> different
> platforms. That would be a new departure and possibly not the correct
> thing for a bug fix release.

I thought it was generally accepted that the .tar.gz files were  
intended for Unix-related platforms, and zips were intended for use  
with Windows. No?

The last release I was trying out the release targets on different  
platforms, and what I *thought* I ended up posting as the release  
candidate were the .tar.gzs that I built on a Linux box and the .zips  
that I built on the Windows box. But, from Bryan's latest post, now  
I'm not sure that is true, or even that the line feeds were  
guaranteed to be one way or the other on the Linux box that I was using.

I'd file a JIRA for the right behavior, but I'm not sure we have an  
agreement on what the expected line feeds for each archive should be.  
Should we:

- Try to maintain consistency with previous releases, at least for  
bug fix releases?
- Or is it an acceptable bug fix to have LFs on shell scripts for  
both archives for this release? And, will that break shell emulators  
for Windows (e.g. Cygwin, there are others) or not? I don't have  
Cygwin installed anywhere right now, so I can't verify that immediately.
- If not, CRLFs for .sh for zips but not tar.gzs? or is that  
disagreeable because that introduces a difference between the archives?


View raw message