The packages aren't official. :) They're provided as conveniences by members of the community. So they can be prepared however. It's good practice to prepare it from the tarball we voted on though!
On 4 April 2014 18:52, Wendall Cada <[email protected]> wrote: > So the tarball can't be generated and signed, pushed without announcing? > Shouldn't an official signed tarball be what the official packages are built > from? That was my understanding. Otherwise, the packages are being build > from git, and may not match the release. Or is the assumption made that > these are built from the rc artifact? I'm just asking for clarification > here, not seeing an issue. > > Wendall > > > On 04/04/2014 09:32 AM, Noah Slater wrote: >> >> Wendal, we tend to wait if it's only going to be a short period. Has >> more impact. >> >> On 4 April 2014 18:19, Wendall Cada <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Since the vote passed shouldn't we have 1.5.1 tarballs available? I >>> didn't >>> think that the official packages should hold up releasing the source >>> version. This is especially useful for other release folks building >>> updates >>> for distros, etc. >>> >>> Wendall >>> >>> >>> On 04/03/2014 02:28 PM, Jan Lehnardt wrote: >>>> >>>> On 03 Apr 2014, at 22:45 , Eli Stevens (Gmail) <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Installs fine, old DBs still visible, install verifies. >>>>> >>>>> It didn't automatically open in my browser, though (FF, beta channel). >>>>> I might have disabled that in a previous release? Not sure if that >>>>> was even possible. The checkbox in the menu was unchecked. >>>> >>>> Yeah, it just reads the existing settings for that. I didn't change >>>> anything >>>> in the Mac UI bits :) >>>> >>>> Thanks for testing! >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Jan >>> >>> >> >> > -- Noah Slater https://twitter.com/nslater
