Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index


Hi *,

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Simos Xenitellis
<simos.lists@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Fridrich Strba
<fridrich.strba@graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:
Whenever a release candidate becomes final build, it is just renamed.
Rebuilding it again could mean a risk that the final will have a bug
that was not in the release candidate.


So, the .deb files are the correct ones, the issue is just with the
directory name
that was not renamed appropriately?

No, the problem was that the directory for the 64bit RPMs actually
contained the 32bit RPMs. (here talking about the downloadable files,
i.e. the tarballs)

The directory within the downloads always was correct, and as explaine
the approved rc (tarball) is renamed to the final name, thus it is
expected/desired behaviour that the directoryname included within the
tarball matches the one of the rc.
rc and final downloads have identical checksums.

ciao
Christian

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.