Hi Peter,
On Thu, 5 Jun 2014 10:05:15 +1000, Peter Hutterer
<peter.hutte...@who-t.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 03:13:13PM +0200, Stephen Kitt wrote:
> > + [ -n "$targz" ] && rm -f ${targz}.sig && $GPG -b $targz &&
> > siggz=${targz}.sig || true
> > + [ -n "$tarbz2" ] && rm -f ${tarbz2}.sig && $GPG -b $tarbz2 &&
> > sigbz2=${tarbz2}.sig || true
> > + [ -n "$tarxz" ] && rm -f ${tarxz}.sig && $GPG -b $tarxz &&
> > sigxz=${tarxz}.sig || true
>
> shouldn't we fail here if creating the detached sig fails?
My initial intent was to make gpg signing a "best effort" thing, so if the
tarballs can be gpg-signed so much the better, but if they can't the release
can proceed anyway. But you're right, this patch turns gpg into a hard
requirement because of the signed git tag ("git tag -s" fails if gpg can't
sign the tag), so failing to create the detached sig could justifiably fail
the release.
I'll rework the patch by Saturday...
Regards,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
