Hi Ingo, At 2026-01-18T22:24:29+0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote: > First problem report: > > Extracting the tarball results in a directory > > groff-1.23.0.5077-7dcc8 > > which is inconsistent and confusing naming. Obviously, this is > trivial to work around in the port building system, but i consider it > a defect nonetheless.
Yes, fair point. I need to add something about this to the "FOR-RELEASE" file. I applied the tag in retrospect, having selected a "dist" archive that built successfully on a handful of host configurations available to me. I guess what I need to do in the future is apply the tag and then re-roll the distribution archive. > Logical directory names would be something like > > groff-1.24.0 > groff-1.24.0rc1 > groff-1.24.0.rc1 > > I think calling the tarball and directory "1.24.0rc1" would make more > sense logically than "1.24.0.rc1" because "1.24.0" is the dotted > version number and "rc1" is a suffix to it; "rc1" is not another > number component of the version number. That's true, but I find it important to distinguish this "fourth component" of the version number from that stored in the `.Y` register, and we've had problems in this area before. I'm having trouble tracking down citations, but it back around 2017-2018. I think a release candidate was put out and it broke weirdly for some people because the interpolated contents of the `.Y` register were not a simple integer. > I'm planning to report problems as i go. Based on past experiences, > i expect to encounter a few dozen problems during testing, not > counting problems that already existed in 1.23. To make sure nothing > gets lost, i intend to report one problem per mail as soon as i > encounter it. I'm not yet sure whether it's better to send mail > only to you privately (as the effective release manager) or to the > list. Which option do you prefer? Sending to the list is fine. Maybe Dave can help convert some of them into Savannah tickets. > I'd don't categorically refuse using Savannah, but i'd like to avoid > it as much as possible because using it is typically painful, slow, > and error-prone. Of course, if you need Savannah tickets, i can > make them, in that case, just say so, either in general or for > particular issues; i just don't want to cause a needless fuss. We can judge things on a case-by-case basis. Likely, anything that would require a code change will merit a Savannah ticket. Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
