On 03/20/2012 08:23 PM, Jesse Becker wrote:
>
>> If the Ganglia community releases a tarball called, 3.3.3-2.tar.gz, for
>> example, then someone building RPM packages might release 3.3.3-2-1
> If the Ganglia project really did release "3.3.3-2.tar.gz", we should
> have our heads examined. :)
>
> B
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 15:08, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> On 20/03/12 19:59, Jesse Becker wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 14:52, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>
>>> On 20/03/12 19:27, Bernard Li wrote:
>>>
I don't really want to make a big deal out of this but I thought it
was long agreed that we
On 20/03/12 19:59, Jesse Becker wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 14:52, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>> On 20/03/12 19:27, Bernard Li wrote:
>>
>>> I don't really want to make a big deal out of this but I thought it
>>> was long agreed that we would tag a release (eg. 3.3.2) and that would
>>> p
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 14:52, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
> On 20/03/12 19:27, Bernard Li wrote:
>> I don't really want to make a big deal out of this but I thought it
>> was long agreed that we would tag a release (eg. 3.3.2) and that would
>> potentially be our "Release Candidate". If everything is
On 20/03/12 19:27, Bernard Li wrote:
> I don't really want to make a big deal out of this but I thought it
> was long agreed that we would tag a release (eg. 3.3.2) and that would
> potentially be our "Release Candidate". If everything is fine, we
> will just release as is otherwise we will disca
I don't really want to make a big deal out of this but I thought it
was long agreed that we would tag a release (eg. 3.3.2) and that would
potentially be our "Release Candidate". If everything is fine, we
will just release as is otherwise we will discard 3.3.2, bump the
version to 3.3.3 and repeat
On 20/03/2012 17:57, Jesse Becker wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 13:36, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> On 20/03/2012 17:34, Bernard Li wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Daniel Pocock
>>> wrote:
>>>
I agree with that approach, with a slight variation - I'll tag it as
3.3.3dp1 (a
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 13:36, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> On 20/03/2012 17:34, Bernard Li wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with that approach, with a slight variation - I'll tag it as
>>> 3.3.3dp1 (after adding the ChangeLog file)
>>
>> Quick question --
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 05:36:56PM +, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> On 20/03/2012 17:34, Bernard Li wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> >
> >>I agree with that approach, with a slight variation - I'll tag it as
> >>3.3.3dp1 (after adding the ChangeLog file)
> >
> >Quick
On 20/03/2012 17:34, Bernard Li wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>> I agree with that approach, with a slight variation - I'll tag it as
>> 3.3.3dp1 (after adding the ChangeLog file)
>
> Quick question -- does this prevent RPM upgrading? i.e. 3.3.3dp1 -> 3.3.3?
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> I agree with that approach, with a slight variation - I'll tag it as
> 3.3.3dp1 (after adding the ChangeLog file)
Quick question -- does this prevent RPM upgrading? i.e. 3.3.3dp1 -> 3.3.3?
Cheers,
Bernard
---
On 20/03/2012 16:32, Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:09:29PM +, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone want to sneak in any last minute changes before I tag 3.3.2
>> and make the tarball available for testing?
>
> there is already a published tag named 3.3.2, if y
Thanks for the prompt feedback
I understand from your email that you are not worried if those files are
empty?
Maintaining extra copies of these files for libmetrics may be another
reason to try and avoid the nested configure script
On 20/03/2012 15:07, Michael Perzl wrote:
> I tested the ta
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:09:29PM +, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
> Does anyone want to sneak in any last minute changes before I tag 3.3.2
> and make the tarball available for testing?
there is already a published tag named 3.3.2, if you are not going to release
that then it will be better if we
Hi Daniel:
If you let me know where you put the tarballs I will put them in
http://ganglia.info/downloads/testing.
Cheers,
Bernard
On Tuesday, March 20, 2012, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>
> I've updated the document at
>
> https://github.com/ganglia/monitor-core/wiki/BuildingARelease
>
> and been
Besides the "autoreconf" issue I mentioned in my previous email, the
tarball compiles cleanly on
AIX5.1, AIX5.3, RHEL4, RHEL6, SLES9, SLES10, SLES11
Regards,
Michael
On 03/20/2012 03:07 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> On 20/03/2012 12:09, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>
>> I've updated the document at
>>
>>
I tested the tarball and it still does not contain the following files:
ganglia-3.3.2/ChangeLog
ganglia-3.3.2/libmetrics/ChangeLog
ganglia-3.3.2/libmetrics/INSTALL
Those files are necessary if you do a "autoreconf -fi" which is
necessary if you add something to any "*.am" file in the source tree
On 20/03/2012 12:09, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>
> I've updated the document at
>
> https://github.com/ganglia/monitor-core/wiki/BuildingARelease
>
> and been able to follow the steps there to build a working tarball (at
> least the tarball works for me).
>
> The main change is that it now relies on `
I've updated the document at
https://github.com/ganglia/monitor-core/wiki/BuildingARelease
and been able to follow the steps there to build a working tarball (at
least the tarball works for me).
The main change is that it now relies on `make dist' rather than
scripts/package-ganglia-release
19 matches
Mail list logo
