From: "iank at fsf dot org" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: overseers@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug Infrastructure/29643] Release upload process improvements
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2022 04:08:58 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-29643-14326-6JuTr266bU@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-29643-14326@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29643
--- Comment #1 from iank at fsf dot org ---
mark at klomp dot org via Overseers <overseers@sourceware.org> writes:
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29643
>
> Bug ID: 29643
> Summary: Release upload process improvements
> Product: sourceware
> Version: unspecified
> Status: NEW
> Severity: normal
> Priority: P2
> Component: Infrastructure
> Assignee: overseers at sourceware dot org
> Reporter: mark at klomp dot org
> Target Milestone: ---
>
> Projects that use https://sourceware.org/pub/ for releases need a shell account
> and are responsible for providing signatures themselves (although we do
> generate md5 and sha512 sums).
>
> It would be good to provide a release mechanism like:
> https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Automated-FTP-Uploads
> So no shell access is required and signatures are.
Is it better to comment on these in bugzilla? Apparently I never created
one, I just emailed, in the meantime, I'll reply here.
This is a great idea, and I suggest using the GNU FTP software. It is
unpublished currently, I think only because of momentum that it started
as a tiny script 16 years ago but we (FSF) could publish and/or share it
right away (just say the word). We recently had a volunteer audit the
code for security issues and have been working toward publish a release
that had all the documentation for other people to easily use it, but
that doesn't need to be perfect, we can just do it.
Right now, I see that GCC, GDB, GLIBC and Binutils are published both
places, so this seems like an obvious area for more
cooperation/coordination
For example, (and I would just open a separate bug for this, but I want
to get this off my chest): I notice that the sort order on
https://sourceware.org/pub/ is alphabetical instead of version ordering,
which is confusing. On the GNU FTP, we apparently get the right sort
ordering through debian's config,
/etc/apache2/mods-available/autoindex.conf, the line seems to be:
IndexOptions FancyIndexing VersionSort HTMLTable NameWidth=* DescriptionWidth=*
Charset=UTF-8,
the debian upstream repo for this config is
https://salsa.debian.org/apache-team/apache2 in the path
./debian/config-dir/mods-available/autoindex.conf
I suggest adding that line to the sourceware apache config.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-03 4:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-02 21:17 [Bug Infrastructure/29643] New: " mark at klomp dot org
2022-10-03 3:10 ` Ian Kelling
2022-10-03 17:10 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2022-10-07 15:38 ` Ian Kelling
2022-10-03 4:08 ` iank at fsf dot org [this message]
2022-10-06 17:50 ` [Bug Infrastructure/29643] " mark at klomp dot org
2022-10-12 4:07 ` iank at fsf dot org
2022-12-31 16:14 ` mark at klomp dot org
2023-01-04 11:14 ` Ian Kelling
2023-01-04 11:14 ` iank at fsf dot org
2023-01-10 9:51 ` iank at fsf dot org
2023-01-10 10:04 ` iank at fsf dot org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-29643-14326-6JuTr266bU@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org \
--cc=overseers@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).