httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release 2.3.10 tarballs as Alpha
Date Tue, 21 Dec 2010 17:34:53 GMT
On 12/21/2010 10:38 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
> On Dec 21, 2010, at 10:16 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> 
>> On 12/16/2010 6:51 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> The Apache httpd 2.3.10-alpha test tarballs are available at:
>>>
>>> 	http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>>>
>>> Please vote on whether to release as 2.3.10-alpha.
>>
>> +1 to httpd-2.3.10-alpha.tar.gz/bz2
>> (to the contents of httpd-2.3.10.tar.gz - but -1 to the current package name)
> 
> I've no idea how to grok this... do you want a rename of
> the archive names *as well as the resulting untarred dir*
> to be renamed or just the tar.* files?

EDONTCARE, it's the package name I'm concerned about.  So, let's refer to
2.3.4 and 2.3.5 which were named correctly... looking at archive.a.o/dist/httpd

drwxr-xr-x  0 chip   chip        0 Nov 25  2009 httpd-2.3.4-alpha/
-rw-r--r--  0 chip   chip        0 Nov 25  2009 httpd-2.3.4-alpha/.deps
-rw-r--r--  0 chip   chip     8781 May  8  2009 httpd-2.3.4-alpha/.gdbinit
-rw-r--r--  0 chip   chip    14882 Feb 14  2008 httpd-2.3.4-alpha/ABOUT_APACHE
...
drwxr-xr-x  0 chip   chip        0 Jan 21  2010 httpd-2.3.5-alpha/
-rw-r--r--  0 chip   chip        0 Jan 21  2010 httpd-2.3.5-alpha/.deps
-rw-r--r--  0 chip   chip     8781 May  8  2009 httpd-2.3.5-alpha/.gdbinit
-rw-r--r--  0 chip   chip    14882 Feb 14  2008 httpd-2.3.5-alpha/ABOUT_APACHE
...
drwxr-xr-x  0 chip   users       0 Jun 24  2005 httpd-2.1.6-alpha
drwxr-xr-x  0 chip   users       0 Jun 24  2005 httpd-2.1.6-alpha/os
drwxr-xr-x  0 chip   users       0 Jun 24  2005 httpd-2.1.6-alpha/os/win32
-rw-r--r--  0 chip   users    3871 Feb 18  2005 httpd-2.1.6-alpha/os/win32/os.h

and finally, the last beta we shipped...
drwxr-xr-x  0 chip   chip        0 Oct 30  2005 httpd-2.1.9-beta/
drwxr-xr-x  0 chip   chip        0 Oct 30  2005 httpd-2.1.9-beta/os/
drwxr-xr-x  0 chip   chip        0 Oct 30  2005 httpd-2.1.9-beta/os/os2/
-rw-r--r--  0 chip   chip     1185 Sep 29  2005 httpd-2.1.9-beta/os/os2/os.h

So if you want to be 100% consistent, it appears we've embedded the path into
the tarballs, but I don't care if that convention is changed, or not.  I'm 100%
certain there were packages in the 2.0-alpha series that did /not/ include the
tag in the tarball, because they would be voted up to -alpha, -beta, or GA in
the end.  I'm almost certain that the internal naming wasn't decided by vote
on the list, and that it's been the preference of the RM.





Mime
View raw message