[LLVMdev] Obsolete PTX is NOT completely removed in 3.2 release

Justin Holewinski justin.holewinski at gmail.com
Fri Jan 11 12:51:34 PST 2013


On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> wrote:

> On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin Holewinski
> >> <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Benjamin Kramer
> >>> <benny.kra at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 11.01.2013, at 07:36, ????????? (Wei-Ren Chen)
> >>> <chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Pawel,
> >>>>
> >>>> PTX already be replaced with NVPTX. However, PTX subdirectory
> >>>> still sit in lib/Target in 3.2 release. Do you think update
> >>>> the release tarball is a good idea? Also could you remove it
> >>>> from the trunk?
> >>>
> >>> Please do not, under no circumstances, change the 3.2 release
> >>> tarballs at this point. They are mirrored around the world now
> >>> with cryptographic hashes and signatures. Changing them will
> >>> break things for many people, especially for an extremely
> >>> minor thing like an empty directory.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure if Pawel's tarball change should be reverted now
> >>> as it already caused uproar, so changing it back might only
> >>> make matters worse.
> >>>
> >>> The tarballs were changed?
> >>
> >> r172208
> >
> > I finally updated the FreeBSD ports yesterday and today a user
> > complained about distfile changes.  IMO, this revision should be
> > reverted or all the other BSDs will have to chase checksums as
> > well.
> >
> > If you really want to remove the directory, ship a 3.2.1 tarball
> > rather than screwing all the downstream consumers who's
> > infrastructure exists to detect trojan'd tarballs.
>
> Tarball is signed, it is not trjoan.
> Your infrastructure should be able to deal with it?
>

Many of these environments rely on checking against a known-good checksum.
If a tarball is replaced at the source, that checksum changes.  Once a
release is cut, that particular release should never change.  If a change
is necessary, some sort of point release (3.2.1) is preferable, so anyone
wanting 3.2 still gets the old binary with the old checksum.


>
> >
> > -- Brooks
> >
>
> PaweĊ‚
>
>


-- 

Thanks,

Justin Holewinski
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130111/059f82db/attachment.html>


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list