On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 1:39 AM, Julian Foad <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 2011-07-22, Hyrum K Wright wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Julian Foad <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > On Thu, 2011-07-21, Hyrum K Wright wrote: >> >> The next prerelease from the 1.7.x branch is now up for testing and >> >> signing: 1.7.0-beta2. >> > >> > +1 to release (Unix). >> > >> > My two signatures were successfully collected by your script. >> > >> > Tested: >> > >> > [ bdb | fsfs ] x [ ra_local | ra_svn | ra_neon | ra_serf ] >> > swig-py >> > swig-pl >> > swig-rb >> > >> > (I also built ctypes-python and javahl, but couldn't get their tests >> > to run. I'm assuming that's a local problem. It's not a new problem.) >> > >> > Environment: >> > >> > OS/Platform: >> > Ubuntu 10.10, 2.6.35-30-generic i686 GNU/Linux >> > >> > Using no in-tree build of dependencies. >> > >> > Using Ubuntu distribution-supplied packages: >> > libapr1 1.4.2-3ubuntu1 >> > libaprutil1 1.3.9+dfsg-3build1 >> > libdb-dev 4.8 >> > openssl 0.9.8o-1ubuntu4 >> > perl 5.10.1-12ubuntu2 >> > python 2.6.6-2ubuntu1 >> > python 2.6.6-2ubuntu2 >> > zlib1g 1:1.2.3.4.dfsg-3ubuntu1 >> > ruby 1.8.7 >> > neon 0.29.3 >> > >> > Using self-built packages: >> > serf 0.7.2 >> > >> > Results: >> > >> > make check ... (8 ways): No failures. >> > >> > Signatures: >> > >> > ::: subversion-1.5.9.tar.bz2 ::: >> >> Typo? >> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > [...] > > Oops, those are old sigs. The correct sigs are: > > ::: subversion-1.7.0-beta2.tar.bz2 ::: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEABECAAYFAk4pjbQACgkQNR8z5DU+Jbyp4ACgi3OEGaxS//W/nb0TytqVhUvU > nWcAnj3yutmU0aYnnLwkE4qFoOrGs2/v > =8xfU > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ::: subversion-1.7.0-beta2.tar.gz ::: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEABECAAYFAk4pjbQACgkQNR8z5DU+JbywHwCbBP1e+xft8atZ6+Y//dLJ2U18 > chYAoJAqOuFaGBlP5TB5yfijKuQdiGSu > =AAJB > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > (I believe I posted the correct sigs to the sig collection web page, as > it reported success whereas it would have reported the old sigs as > 'bad'.)
Yep, the sigs submitted through the script were valid (and I also validate all the sigs before copying them to /dist/ anyway). -Hyrum -- uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy http://www.uberSVN.com/
