Since the tar archives are corrupt because of the usage of bsdtar, I close this thread and create a new RC and will post a new vote thread for that.
Thanks, Ferenc On Tuesday, June 10th, 2025 at 17:50, Ferenc Csaky <ferenc.cs...@pm.me.INVALID> wrote: > > > I think the same issue just came up in a recent Flink Kubernetes Operator > release let me take a look at that, and if necessary I will create a new RC. > > Thanks for taking the time and figuring this out! > > Best, > Ferenc > > > > > On Tuesday, June 10th, 2025 at 10:36, Sergey Nuyanzin snuyan...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > thank you for the highlighting Ferenc! > > > > I confirm that CI (including nightlies passed) for 1.19 which is great. > > > > I started to check > > - verified keys and signatures (ok) > > - checked hashsums (ok) > > - built from sources in Mac (ok) > > - ran simple jobs (ok) > > > > the thing which is not ok: I tried to build in Linux and it failed > > with a number of files without license > > after digging here it looks like if I decompress it with tar it > > results to flink sources where for every file > > there is a binary file with a almost same name (having prefix "._") > > cat shows that every files starts with "Mac OS X" > > I tend to think the reason is that probably for archives there were > > used some Mac specific tools which lead to problems in Linux > > > > On Sun, Jun 8, 2025 at 9:16 AM Ferenc Csaky ferenc.cs...@pm.me.invalid > > wrote: > > > > > I would like to highlight that, now the Azure pipeline is fixed, > > > there was a green CI run for the release-1.19 branch [1]. > > > > > > Best, > > > Ferenc > > > > > > [1] > > > https://dev.azure.com/apache-flink/apache-flink/_build/results?buildId=68012&view=results > > > > > > On Monday, June 2nd, 2025 at 17:36, Ferenc Csaky > > > ferenc.cs...@pm.me.INVALID wrote: > > > > > > > I do not necessarily see the direct connection between the CI > > > > trigger and a new RC. Even if the CI trigger has to be fixed with > > > > another commit into the `apache/flink` repo, my educated guess > > > > would be it will not change anything in the product, so creating > > > > a new RC would mean the exact same content. > > > > > > > > Your point regarding we need to make sure we did not break anything > > > > is fair, although I would like note that the ustream Nighly CI run [1] > > > > and the one I ran on my fork with the rc1 tag [2] to produce wheels was > > > > both successful, and AFAIK that covers pretty much everything that the > > > > Azure CI run. I am not saying we should move forward, the GH CI is still > > > > in beta, so we should definitely fix the Azure CI and get a green run, > > > > but we should not drop RC1 yet. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Ferenc > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/flink/actions/runs/15382501322 > > > > [2] https://github.com/ferenc-csaky/flink/actions/runs/15333746515 > > > > > > > > On Monday, June 2nd, 2025 at 09:42, Sergey Nuyanzin snuyan...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks for looking into this Ferenc > > > > > > > > > > It seems I have to vote with > > > > > -1 (binding) > > > > > > > > > > I went through CI build and it looks like CI is broken for all > > > > > branches (1.19.x, 1.20.x, 2.0.x it is run only for same old commit > > > > > without taking others into account) > > > > > It means no way to see whether there is anything else is broken or not > > > > > with commits after that > > > > > the issue for that https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-37883 > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Sergey
