It wasn't verify_sigs fault; I just uploaded the wrong file. When I ran it on the files I downloaded from RC2/, it complained correctly.
On 9/26/07, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > All the MD5 and ASC files check out OK now. > > Why did verify_sigs not complain before? > If it's faulty, it needs to be fixed - or abandoned as a check. > > S. > On 26/09/2007, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Turns out those assemblies had an outdated POM in them. I've rebuilt > them > > with the pom tagged as RC2. Since there were no other changes, I > replaced > > the broken ones in my RC2/ directory with the new ones. > > > > Can you please recheck? > > > > On 9/25/07, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > OK, I've now got your key. > > > > > > However, the following sigs don't work for me: > > > > > > commons-email-1.1-RC2-bin.zip.asc > > > commons-email-1.1-RC2-bin.tar.gz.asc > > > commons-email-1.1-RC2.jar.asc > > > > > > Same files that have the MD5 problems. > > > > > > S/// > > > > > > On 25/09/2007, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > My key is in trunks-proper ( > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/trunks-proper/) but it > hasn't > > > been > > > > copied to the main KEYS file yet. > > > > > > > > I'll double-check the MD5s. verify_sigs swore they were correct :) > > > > > > > > On 9/25/07, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Also, I can't find the signing key - it does not seem to be in > > > > > > > > > > http://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS > > > > > > > > > > but perhaps it is elsewhere? > > > > > > > > > > On 25/09/2007, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Some of the MD5s don't work for me: > > > > > > > > > > > > BAD MD5 commons-email-1.1-RC2.jar > > > > > > Expect: fb02f6aff49332705084b662a5d8d945 > > > > > > Found: a2d70201e44041f9d9b3d865c615e35f > > > > > > > > > > > > BAD MD5 commons-email-1.1-RC2-bin.tar.gz > > > > > > Expect: f7d933426b68e184047405b52e9bfa0c > > > > > > Found: 770a8da798eb94137e24e03da2904a66 > > > > > > > > > > > > BAD MD5 commons-email-1.1-RC2-bin.zip > > > > > > Expect: 21fd56446a77476370d2b0c1bc87b241 > > > > > > Found: 1a1b4e432d1ec67af99a66576f53db7e > > > > > > > > > > > > S/// > > > > > > On 24/09/2007, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > New source and javadoc jars have been uploaded, tag has been > > > > > reapplied, > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > signatures rechecked. Votes again welcome :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/24/07, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just wanted to make sure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I will update the RC sources.jar and javadoc.jar with > versions > > > > that > > > > > > > put > > > > > > > > the LICENSE/NOTICE in META-INF. I'll check in the POM and > retag > > > as > > > > > > > RC2, > > > > > > > > leaving the current RC2 artifacts on people.a.o in place as > > > there > > > > > are > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > code changes. Is everybody okay with that plan? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/24/07, Ben Speakmon <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That settles it for me. Do we need to put LICENSE/NOTICE > in > > > > > META-INF > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > source and javadoc or is the root directory acceptable? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/24/07, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ben Speakmon wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I wasn't sure what to make of it either; the release > docs > > > > > don't > > > > > > > > > > mention it > > > > > > > > > > > specifically. The source and javadoc jars, BTW, are > > > intended > > > > > to > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > deployed > > > > > > > > > > > next to the final build in the maven repo. It won't be > > > hard > > > > to > > > > > > > make > > > > > > > > > > sure > > > > > > > > > > > they get in there. Is there a consensus that it's > required > > > > for > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > release? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't have an official reference either, but I > remember > > > > votes > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > were canceled because of this. Here is an example for > that I > > > > > found > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > the archives [1]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oliver > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--3rd-attempt:-Release-commons-io-1.3.2-t3880798.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/24/07, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> Everything looks good, except for one thing, which I > > > think > > > > > > > needs to > > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > >> fixed: the jar with the javadocs does not contain > > > > > NOTICE.txtand > > > > > > > > > > >> LICENSE.txt. (The jar with the sources contains these > > > > files, > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > > > >> are stored in the top level rather than in META-INF; > > > don't > > > > > know > > > > > > > > > > whether > > > > > > > > > > >> this is problematic.) > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
