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

[Pawel Wodnicki]

On 1/11/2013 2:51 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote:
> 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.

Current process does not have any provision for any more releases
beyond 3.2.

Frankly, anybody who depends on the release should have been
involved in it during RC1,RC2 or RC3 at the latest.

Paweł

> 
> 
>>
>>>
>>> -- Brooks
>>>
>>
>> Paweł
>>
>>
> 
>