> From: Sander Striker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 17 September 2002 20:59
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 17 September 2002 20:44 > > >>> I would also recommend a new tarball with the timestamp tweaked. Something > >>> like so: > >>> > >>> $ tar xzf httpd-....tar.gz > >>> $ touch .../ssl_expr_parse.c > >>> $ tar czf httpd-....tar.gz httpd-... > >>> > >>> That's gonna affect the tarball's MD5 signature tho. > >> > >> And the PGP signatures. Do I hear objections against that? > > > > Just on the basic premise that the tarball has been released. At this > > point, it is available for users. If we are going to create new tarballs, > > then must have a new name. > > *sigh* Ofcourse you are right. So, what do we do, stick with 2.0.41 or retag > APACHE_2_0_42 to be the same as APACHE_2_0_41 and reroll? Ok, maybe this is all a bit too much for a _timestamp_. There were no content changes. So, if someone would be using 2.0.41 (before or after the timestamp tweak), the code would be the same. Since we haven't released yet I would like to simply replace the existing tarballs and sigs. Sander
