On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:14:33 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 06:12:33AM -0400, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:36:56AM +0100, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > > The sources for new libvirt-ocaml releases are hosted via gitlab. Add
> > > the link. Since old releases are not present there preserve also the old
> > > link.
> > ...
> > > * - OCaml
> > > - - `libvirt <
https://download.libvirt.org/ocaml/>`__
> > > + - `gitlab <
https://gitlab.com/libvirt/libvirt-ocaml/-/tags>`__
> > > + `libvirt (old versions)
<
https://download.libvirt.org/ocaml/>`__
> >
> > Is the fact that no tarballs have been uploaded for the last few
> > releases intentional, or an oversight?
> >
> > While I see tags for those releases in GitLab, in general git tags
> > are not a replacement for proper release tarballs, which I'm not
> > seeing anywhere on GitLab.
>
> Indeed, as was seen recently with github, the auto-generated tarballs
> can change when the backend impl changes, which invalidate any hashes
> vendors are using to validate tarballs. It is unwise to rely on the
> auto-generated tarballs as the canonical release artifacts
>
> > The Fedora package still points to the
libvirt.org server too[1], so
> > to me it appears that a few uploads were simply missed.
> >
> > Rich?
In the following comment:
https://gitlab.com/libvirt/libvirt-ocaml/-/issues/3#note_1292266414
Rich specifically pointed users to the gitlab "release".
, is PGP signed by Rich himself, so at some point in the
past we clearly got this to work :)
Could he have lost his access or something?
--
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization