MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+U5nMKyzv6B7ywGv8BLfwig1wgimp0keo9rKUpaLpnANuiH+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAKq0gvKgeckkBa0xm6xsrmNvk=Cm6zPP4n1O3CQCvDUvCYCs8w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABUevEyONmEeqwU4VJgs8vTV3yW3dsNLPiFfPnAKJOCLgYbvYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKq0gvL-s4_Mk0ztGh+yywH5v4Jvnm2Fs2k-gq2wcrW+kfY2xQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1341692590.1122.1.camel@lenovo01-laptop03.gunduz.org>
	<2476F91B-A1B2-45DA-96EB-8F33C79A0E05@openscg.com>
	<1341781012.3451.0.camel@lenovo01-laptop03.gunduz.org>
	<CA+OCxoxExqHx_ZNRpvmJpVoNCOa9yO4C3HTZ4Ob7e32Wn2+fcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABUevEzm09To=uzW=+F==G98HK2YZNXsXwv+NW-7uOgqGLOxoQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+OCxox1pCaXvOeVmv0gECbXsOqGeXQL-O2QsyWmFS9ZvCkjbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABUevEx_7-Xm+z5oc+61TuHzSbu34fWAKiRxAXjGwfCzff=OZA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+OCxoyGPVRQ+1tnxGuFS1JACr1QJUchS90qxXHuN_YTUNj8QA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+U5nMK86koEcfkBwUWRPqGTT1b8Qjp3hN=pk3to+kqaUoWp=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+OCxoxxW3EOoLpWuTk=GW2Hr-Z+8m0_oN2QUQCMpVss6R+DDw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+U5nMKyzv6B7ywGv8BLfwig1wgimp0keo9rKUpaLpnANuiH+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 12:28:33 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CA+OCxoycBKhAH=htfpkm5vUhDO3UW=J4bLTUargH3v5oUTk5cQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Linux Downloads page change
From: Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Devrim_G=DCND=DCZ?= <devrim@gunduz.org>,
	Scott Mead <scottm@openscg.com>,
	"pgsql-www@postgresql.org" <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 9 July 2012 12:21, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> On 9 July 2012 10:44, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It gets pushed periodically when I remember to do it (or someone
>>>> reminds me), which I guess you've forgotten given that we've had this
>>>> exact same discussion before.
>>>
>>> That highlights a key flaw.
>>>
>>> If we distribute RPMs then the SRPMs should exactly match. If they
>>> don't, that's a pretty serious set of bugs we're introducing.
>>>
>>> Can I suggest that the process be changed? Push the SRPM code, then
>>> generate RPMs from the released SRPM code. That way there is no
>>> opportunity to forget anything. This is a substantial security
>>> concern, not just a forgotten task.
>>>
>>> Perhaps it would be useful to have a "build farm" that builds the RPMs
>>> from SRPMs automatically, then we will have no need for manually
>>> updating the RPMs at all. (And I mean build all binaries from publicly
>>> available build scripts).
>>
>> We're not talking about RPMs here.
>
> I am discussing the relationship of SRPMs and RPMs, which is a valid
> point on this thread given the point that the RPMs and SRPMs have been
> mismatched for some time and that the current process calls for manual
> rather than automatic synchronisation.

I have no idea if that is true for the RPMs - as I said, we haven't
been discussing them.


-- 
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company