Mailing-List: contact dev-help@tomcat.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Tomcat Developers List" <dev@tomcat.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of knst.kolinko@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.218.177 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=HAVehRAAi109TAwOLMHMAQ40CXmQABRwX1KzUxbQ1ne6mmLKEeCKeeuRuSV6S40xlD
         ATsTtBZduszQiOMEIL4nxP2ylCnfK1tr0fqif6nfqtP5GHYf1wzf7HJqZKHVUOffTbCa
         pBPe8MVBIzIGoTqlWex+H3INZnia+3DrgUg8U=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <25aac9fc0905240620m451f6e30g6d09ee7acb488f45@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1242257581.29138.1.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <427155180905240602k5317bbddv55eb601597252b33@mail.gmail.com>
	 <25aac9fc0905240620m451f6e30g6d09ee7acb488f45@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 18:55:46 +0400
Message-ID: <427155180905250755gc5fa827w211e57acbe7b4200@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release build 6.0.20
From: Konstantin Kolinko <knst.kolinko@gmail.com>
To: Tomcat Developers List <dev@tomcat.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

2009/5/24 sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>:
> On 24/05/2009, Konstantin Kolinko <knst.kolinko@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2009/5/14 Remy Maucherat <remm@apache.org>:
>>
>> > The candidates binaries are available here:
>> =A0> http://people.apache.org/~remm/tomcat-6/v6.0.20/
>> =A0>
>> =A0> According to the release process, the 6.0.20 tag is:
>> =A0> [ ] Broken
>> =A0> [ ] Alpha
>> =A0> [ ] Beta
>>
>> > [x] Stable
>> =A0>
>>
>> =A0I do not see any issues with the release, except the one
>> =A0of the tgz sources archive.
>>
>> =A0Regarding the tgz archive of the sources I propose the following:
>> =A0The build was created on an Unix machine, so the files in the zip
>> =A0archive are good enough to rerun the build on unixes.
>>
>> =A0Thus, it is sufficient to repack the archive as tgz.
>
> Strictly speaking, it's not sufficient, because the binary archives
> are supposed to be derivable from the source archives.
>

It is source archive (-src.tar.gz) I am talking about.  All binaries
are derivable from it.

I do not see a contradiction here.

It contains the same files as -src.zip. I used Apache Ant 1.7.0 to repack t=
hese
sources (using the package-src-tgz target from dist.xml, but with fxcrlf fi=
lter
removed).


> See
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what
>
> at the end of the section it says:
>
> "In all such cases, the binary/bytecode package must have the same
> version number as the source release and may only add binary/bytecode
> files that are the result of compiling that version of the source code
> release."
>
> This is not the case for the tgz archive.
>
>> =A0I prepared such
>> =A0an archive and placed it in
>> =A0http://people.apache.org/~kkolinko/tomcat-6/v6.0.20/src/
>>
>> =A0md5 sum is
>> =A06a747d5bfa6b0b57605e8697ca8a4cae *apache-tomcat-6.0.20-src.tar.gz
>>

There are also the following options:

1. Rerun the build, but now with
LANG=3Den_US.ISO8859-1; export LANG;
before it.

It will fix the UTF-8 issue with -src.tar.gz

2. Release as is. As Mark noted, 6.0.18 suffers from the same issue.

I am OK with it.


Best regards,
Konstantin Kolinko

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org