llvm dev - Jan 2013 - [LLVMdev] Obsolete PTX is NOT completely removed in 3.2 release

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at
gmail.com>wrote:
>
> On 11.01.2013, at 07:36, 陳韋任 (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?

>
> - Ben
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>


-- 

Thanks,

Justin Holewinski
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130111/dc29bcae/attachment.html>

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, 陳韋任 (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

- Ben

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at
gmail.com>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, 陳韋任 (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
>
Huh... that was a bit premature.


>
> - Ben
>
>

-- 

Thanks,

Justin Holewinski
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130111/9451a2c4/attachment.html>

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.

-- Brooks
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 188 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130111/695cadc1/attachment.sig>