On 12 Apr 2010, at 11:42, Carlo de Falco wrote:

>
> On 11 Apr 2010, at 23:58, Søren Hauberg wrote:
>
>> søn, 11 04 2010 kl. 16:43 +0200, skrev Carlo de Falco:
>>> On 11 Apr 2010, at 13:51, Arno Onken wrote:
>>>> I filed a bug report and got a reply:
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>>>
>>>> http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sourceforge/ticket/9948#comment:6
>>>>
>>>> In summary, the trailing garbage is caused by the http transfer and
>>>> SourceForge recommends to use the FRS service instead of the phpBB
>>>> release forum.
>>>>
>>>> Are there any objections to changing the release procedure?
>>>>
>>>> Arno
>>>
>>> It seems the person dealing with the bug has not understood the
>>> procedure we are using at the moment.
>>> Packages are indeed released via the SF file release system.
>>> The forum is used as a way for package maintainers to send the
>>> packages to the site maintainers so that they can then upload them  
>>> to
>>> the FRS.
>>
>> I have made a comment in the bug tracker describing out system.
>> Hopefully, this will give us a more usable reply.
>>
>>> Also the GZIP FAQ item the SF guy refers to: http://www.gzip.org/#faq8
>>> seems hardly relevant to me in this case.
>>
>> I think he just meant to say that it's just a warning and it doesn't
>> harm anybody. Personally, I disagree very much with this opinion, as
>> users will be confronted with this warning, not knowing if it means  
>> the
>> package is broken or not. I certainly wasn't sure if the warning  
>> could
>> safely be ignored or not.
>>
>>> Søren, what do you think about this?
>>
>> I still think we should try to persuade the SF people to fix their  
>> bugs.
>> If they do not feel their system is buggy (though it obviously is),  
>> then
>> we can think about alternatives. One would be to find another place  
>> to
>> let package maintainers upload releases. Another would be to move to
>> another hosting service (Savannah?). But let's give the SF people a
>> chance first.
>>
>> Does that sound reasonable?
>>
>> Søren
>>
>
> Søren,
>
> Tahnks for writing the very detailed comment to the SF staff,
> it might be useful for them to think about possible different ways for
> us to deal with the package release system. I am afraid though,  
> that, as the issue
> is still marked as "closed" they will hardly ever read it.
> I don't see a way to re-open the ticket, Arno maybe you as the OP  
> can do this?
>
> I believe we should also maintain the point that the fact that the  
> forum garbles tar.gz attachments IS a bug,
> indipendently of what we are using the attachments for.
>
> As for moving to savannah, even though having only one hosting  
> service for both octave and octave-forge would have some advantages,  
> I would really keep this as a last resort as it would take quite  
> some work and would break a lot of links on websites and books  
> referring to cotave-forge.
>
> c.

I am re-opening this very old thread as I just came across a possible  
solution/workaround to the "trailing garbage" issue.
I just noticed that if .tar.gz files are run through uuencode befor  
uploading, the forum does not modify them so that:

md5sum statistics-1.0.10.tar.gz
588fc3e1d86e82af1eab6d8fc6e7840e  statistics-1.0.10.tar.gz
uuencode statistics-1.0.10.tar.gz < statistics-1.0.10.tar.gz >  
statistics-1.0.10.tar.gz.uue

## upload statistics-1.0.10.tar.gz.uue to the forum
## downloadload statistics-1.0.10.tar.gz.uue from the forum

uudecode statistics-1.0.10.tar.gz.uue
md5sum statistics-1.0.10.tar.gz
588fc3e1d86e82af1eab6d8fc6e7840e  statistics-1.0.10.tar.gz

If noone objects I'd like to change the package release procedure on  
SF to add the uuencode and md5sum steps as this would:

1) save me the effort of unpacking the tarballs posted to the forum  
and re-packing them before uploading
which is the current workaround I am using to avoid the "trailing  
garbage issue"

2) allow me to check the integrity of the files uploaded to/downloade  
from the forum by comparing the checksums

I would particularly appreciate comments from windows users as  
uuencode/md5sum are utilities available on any standard unix system  
but I know nothing about windows.

c.

P.S. If this is OK we might even consider, in a future Octave release,  
adding the ability for pkg.m to install .tar.gz.uue files directly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Palm PDK Hot Apps Program offers developers who use the
Plug-In Development Kit to bring their C/C++ apps to Palm for a share
of $1 Million in cash or HP Products. Visit us here for more details:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/dev2dev-palm
_______________________________________________
Octave-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev

Reply via email to