Patrick McCarty wrote: > Since this appears to have been a re-release of version 1.3.2, was this > an intentional re-release?
Yes it was. The bad tarball was on on the main upload site for a couple of hours but problems with the mirroring meant that the bad tarball lingered on some of the mirrors for much longer. The reason the bad tarball was bad the bad date in one of the test files.shown in the diff below. Erik diff -Nru flac-1.3.2-v1/test/metaflac-test-files/case07-expect.meta flac-1.3.2-v2/test/metaflac-test-files/case07-expect.meta --- flac-1.3.2-v1/test/metaflac-test-files/case07-expect.meta 2016-12-31 16:52:09.366371726 -0800 +++ flac-1.3.2-v2/test/metaflac-test-files/case07-expect.meta 2016-12-31 19:54:28.827304796 -0800 @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -reference libFLAC 1.3.1 20141125 +reference libFLAC 1.3.2 20170101 ARTIST=The_artist_formerly_known_as_the_artist... ARTIST=Chuck_Woolery ARTIST=Vern -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ _______________________________________________ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
