On 13/08/20 7:48 am, Helmut K. C. Tessarek wrote:> On 2020-08-12 09:02, Aki Tuomi wrote: >> We are pleased to release pigeonhole 0.5.11. You can download it from >> locations below: >> >> https://pigeonhole.dovecot.org/releases/2.3/dovecot-2.3.11-pigeonhole-0.5.11.tar.gz >> https://pigeonhole.dovecot.org/releases/2.3/dovecot-2.3.11-pigeonhole-0.5.11.tar.gz.sig > > Unfortunately you broke all build systems (rpm, deb, ...) with that release name. > > .11 should have neve been included in the name. As you can see from previous > releases the dovecot patch number was never in the pigeonhole tarball release > name.Yes, please fix in future releases. I already have to define the 2.3 separately from the 11.3 in my spec file, with this change I either have to rename the file or have three definitions: 2.3, 11 and 3 (I renamed the file). Peter
> On 12/08/2020 23:39 Peter <peter at pajamian.dhs.org> wrote: > > > On 13/08/20 7:48 am, Helmut K. C. Tessarek wrote: > > On 2020-08-12 09:02, Aki Tuomi wrote: > >> We are pleased to release pigeonhole 0.5.11. You can download it from > >> locations below: > >> > >> https://pigeonhole.dovecot.org/releases/2.3/dovecot-2.3.11-pigeonhole-0.5.11.tar.gz > >> https://pigeonhole.dovecot.org/releases/2.3/dovecot-2.3.11-pigeonhole-0.5.11.tar.gz.sig > > > > Unfortunately you broke all build systems (rpm, deb, ...) with that release name. > > > > .11 should have neve been included in the name. As you can see from previous > > releases the dovecot patch number was never in the pigeonhole tarball release > > name. > > Yes, please fix in future releases. I already have to define the 2.3 > separately from the 11.3 in my spec file, with this change I either have > to rename the file or have three definitions: 2.3, 11 and 3 (I renamed > the file). > > > PeterHi! Sorry about this, it was a s silly mistake when updating the version number. Not sure why our own build system didn't spot this when making 2.3.11-ce release... We'll see if there is a way to spot this kind of error in future, and of course we will do our best to ensure this won't happen again. Would it fix your build systems if we simply rename the file? Regards, Aki
On 2020-08-12 17:16, Aki Tuomi wrote:> Sorry about this, it was a s silly mistake when updating the version number. Not sure why our own build system didn't spot this when making 2.3.11-ce release... We'll see if there is a way to spot this kind of error in future, and of course we will do our best to ensure this won't happen again. > > Would it fix your build systems if we simply rename the file?Renaming the file won't help, since it will still create the wrong directory name upon decompressing. Cheers, K. C. -- regards Helmut K. C. Tessarek KeyID 0x172380A011EF4944 Key fingerprint = 8A55 70C1 BD85 D34E ADBC 386C 1723 80A0 11EF 4944 /* Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer for chaos and madness await thee at its end. */ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <https://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20200812/34988f92/attachment.sig>
On 13/08/20 9:16 am, Aki Tuomi wrote:> Sorry about this, it was a s silly mistake when updating the version number. Not sure why our own build system didn't spot this when making 2.3.11-ce release... We'll see if there is a way to spot this kind of error in future, and of course we will do our best to ensure this won't happen again. > > Would it fix your build systems if we simply rename the file?As K. C. pointed out, it doesn't because the files still unpack into the wrong directory. I've managed to work around it for now with a tweak to the spec file, though. Peter