Hi *, On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Simos Xenitellis <simos.li...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Fridrich Strba > <fridrich.st...@graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: >> Whenever a release candidate becomes final build, it is just renamed. >> Rebuilding it again could mean a risk that the final will have a bug >> that was not in the release candidate. >> > > So, the .deb files are the correct ones, the issue is just with the > directory name > that was not renamed appropriately?
No, the problem was that the directory for the 64bit RPMs actually contained the 32bit RPMs. (here talking about the downloadable files, i.e. the tarballs) The directory within the downloads always was correct, and as explaine the approved rc (tarball) is renamed to the final name, thus it is expected/desired behaviour that the directoryname included within the tarball matches the one of the rc. rc and final downloads have identical checksums. ciao Christian _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
