esme-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Richard Hirsch <hirsch.d...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of apache-esme-incubating-1.0
Date Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:57:03 GMT
Thanks.

So I assume the SHA and MD5 files are OK.

I'll put everything on my people.apache.org  account later - I can't access
it right now - and restart the vote.

D.

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:

>
> Normally to generate the md5 and sha1, I just use the md5sum/md5 and
> sha1sum/sah1 commands on pretty much any unix box.     You could do it
> right
> on people.apache.org if you wanted.   "sha1 -q file > file.sha1"
>
> Dan
>
>
> On Wed February 17 2010 10:22:01 am Richard Hirsch wrote:
> > Working on the problerm with signing the release and I'm getting the same
> > problem that Bertrand describes. Maybe it is a difference between using
> > SHA1 and SHA512. ..
> >
> > I verified it and it looks OK:
> >
> > C:\Program Files\GNU\GnuPG>gpg --verify
> > apache-esme-1-0-0-incubating.src.tar.gz.
> > asc apache-esme-1-0-0-incubating.src.tar.gz
> > gpg: Unterschrift vom 02/17/10 15:48:32 mittels RSA-Schl├╝ssel ID 6FACF917
> > gpg: Korrekte Unterschrift von "Richard Hirsch (CODE SIGNING KEY) <
> > rhirsch@apache.org>"
> >
> > I signed the release with the following commands:
> >
> > gpg --armor --output apache-esme-1-0-0-incubating.src.tar.gz.asc
> > --detach-sig apache-esme-1-0-0-incubating.src.tar.gz
> > gpg --print-md SHA512 apache-esme-1-0-0-incubating.src.tar.gz >
> > apache-esme-1-0-0-incubating.src.tar.gz.sha
> > gpg --print-md MD5 apache-esme-1-0-0-incubating.src.tar.gz >
> > apache-esme-1-0-0-incubating.src.tar.gz.md5
> >
> >
> > What I don't know how to do is verify using MD5 or SHA? I found this
> > sentence in the "Signing Releases" Apache Documen": "MD5 <#md5> and
> > SHA<#sha-checksum>checksums provide a simple, means of verifying the
> > integrity of a download.
> > You can simply create a checksum (in the same way as the release manager)
> > after download, and compare the result to the checksum downloaded from
> the
> > main Apache site. " but I have no idea how it is done.
> >
> > The contents of the files are
> >
> > * output apache-esme-1-0-0-incubating.src.tar.gz.asc:
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
> >
> > iQIcBAABCgAGBQJLfAHAAAoJEItBUOZvrPkXfeQP/ie7n1axfF5xBb/HbtatCUzW
> > TbYIznhhLZ4xq1bitxA5clSveUnH7O8oRsEmCUBbzday90qHhZUzkVEspr30DB/5
> > j9Tx2+Ov09lShX+L24rKGeL9ReZ5YbiuSxh7WmaESlnSnP3J5NMsG7Um+v2ICyhb
> > NM1HUO7P1D5Xn9LZragOS0dt9VRAEb6h38rbBarRrFjKADf9gLqdkXmv7NgIWWwI
> > AFSJKzUATShT6u4sRJDlauSB0VS8NGfV4F+10OKsmIIHbMyDyTt01chr4KCXcjnf
> > siGHABBPBDUytjx648ohiXJPtmyovBTcqWtn3RF/dneSSCwibKgCGbJQgPCaWxvR
> > uh14gLTdSt2c4VMs0reychMh/fGfAumuPDL2voS+AHc1QCALRiePnqgfxVwW40nP
> > olQP5EPJpVr7vmOrOD29WgxEAlTqDsKLgTAkXAi1sPHpiHapDwu5PalaIMcmw8CS
> > ZBj39pdKFLUQkxgPU08nS/2n6BUcRkNpH6e4ngfQIltSaYN501CUrqi3nLMwx006
> > 3zgTxm/ob6E6z13djolix2w0GQE6hkKDwesCj6K1h/sWp7y9rYiqIqS5A3WO+jAz
> > yij43gkNYzPnjr8Dz8mJM53FWWA+kQvF8E1iesIdTk1s5IaUno9ipqFSHv6wf1TQ
> > PfkCUjE05RyhSY3lDAmY
> > =Y4I/
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
> > * apache-esme-1-0-0-incubating.src.tar.gz.sha
> >
> > apache-esme-1-0-0-incubating.src.tar.gz:
> > 771A97EB 34FD26C1 D431E4EA D7D4FC4C 3971DB42 F50B0B66 C32D601F 70D450FB
> > 06F73667
> >  8E118141 5A83C40A 84C1ABDF 808551DC 10949049 1962C634 FFBFAE69
> >
> > * apache-esme-1-0-0-incubating.src.tar.gz.md5
> >
> > apache-esme-1-0-0-incubating.src.tar.gz:
> > 8E 43 0D DF F8 FE 15 9B  22 47 C2 C0 CC 30 21 2C
> >
> > I then used this command: openssl sha1
> > apache-esme-1-0-0-incubating.src.tar.gz
> > SHA1(apache-esme-1-0-0-incubating.src.tar.gz)=
> > e87405b0df026fde41c65c31c11b8026c
> > a06687d
> >
> > Does somebody have a clue if I'm doing something wrong...
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> > <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Richard Hirsch <hirsch.dick@gmail.com
> >
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > ...The candidate can be found at:
> > > >  http://people.apache.org/~rhirsch/esme/<http://people.apache.org/%7Erhirsch/esme/>
> <http://people.apache.org/%7Erh
> > > >  irsch/esme/>
> > >
> > > Unfortunately I'm -1 on the release, I have a few issues including a
> > > GPL dependency.
> > >
> > > 1) jwebunit dependency is GPL
> > > The server module depends on
> > >
> > > net.sourceforge.jwebunit:jwebunit-htmlunit-plugin:jar:1.4.1:test
> > >
> > > which according to http://jwebunit.sourceforge.net/license.html is
> GPL.
> > >
> > > 2) The sha1 digest does not match, did I do something wrong?
> > >
> > > $ openssl sha1 apache-esme-incubating-1.0-src.tar.gz
> > > SHA1(apache-esme-incubating-1.0-src.tar.gz)=
> > > a9ec8d95266d5944d493392a06eb1651c03222f1
> > >
> > > $ cat apache-esme-incubating-1.0-src.tar.gz.sha
> > > apache-esme-incubating-1.0-src.tar.gz: A53494C8 55474CE3 5AC20516
> > > C2448CB6
> > >
> > >                                       64B3B76C 747BA64A FFC9A836
> EDAB8D86
> > >                                       4E0735CC AA29ACA9 07767C58
> D1C0FEDA
> > >                                       CA7E73A3 ADA3944D 464314B2
> 4BE0E476
> > >
> > > 3) mvn dependency:analyze of the server module shows lots of unused
> > > declared dependencies, those should be cleaned up, especially
> > > openDMK:jdmkrt:jar which according to https://opendmk.dev.java.net/ is
> > > either GPL or CDDL license. Not sure which parts of OpenDMK are which
> > > license, but as it's unused better remove it.
> > >
> > > 4) When trying to build esme-java-client with "mvn clean install" I
> > > get "Embedded error: Error while executing the external compiler" if
> > > JAVA_HOME is not set.
> > >
> > > 5) apache-esme-incubating-1.0-src.tar.gz contains .svn folders, it
> > > should not have that. You could have created the release using svn
> > > export of
> > >
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/esme/tags/apache-esme-1.0-incub
> > > ating/ to avoid that.
> > >
> > > 6) I couldn't find license information for the
> > > com.twitter:stats:jar:1.3:compile dependency, was that checked to be
> > > ok?
> > >
> > > Sorry that I didn't have time to look at that during the ESME podling
> > > vote.
> > >
> > > Apart from the GPL dependency the release preparation looks mostly ok,
> > > rat reports are good, license/notice are provided, etc.
> > >
> > > -Bertrand
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org
> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message