Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
p11-kit: add 0.23.2 bottle.
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
  • Loading branch information
@dunn
BrewTestBot authored and dunn committed Sep 30, 2016
1 parent fa37764 commit 46be01e
Showing 1 changed file with 6 additions and 0 deletions.
6 changes: 6 additions & 0 deletions Formula/p11-kit.rb
View file
Expand Up @@ -4,6 +4,12 @@ class P11Kit < Formula
url "https://p11-glue.freedesktop.org/releases/p11-kit-0.23.2.tar.gz"
sha256 "ba726ea8303c97467a33fca50ee79b7b35212964be808ecf9b145e9042fdfaf0"

bottle do
sha256 "f8a576f0e0c58aeb43d0973c689d2de5d959febb86082d5f9505661402217946" => :sierra
sha256 "056f262ed1ed5fa665885f577e5b2463429c255ff2a987c4f2af67f4f23e0a54" => :el_capitan
sha256 "f82755ab85440b64ec4db85ecaee5c0185ba751a08d693fffd98f8f80c92afb5" => :yosemite
end

depends_on "pkg-config" => :build
depends_on "libffi"

Expand Down

26 comments on commit 46be01e

@RandomDSdevel
Copy link
Contributor

@RandomDSdevel RandomDSdevel commented on 46be01e Sep 30, 2016 •
edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@dunn, @ilovezfs, @DomT4, @toonetown, @dwmw2, @MikeMcQuaid, @nmav: According to p11-kit's latest Changelog, v0.23.2 is a 'devel' release. In that case, then, why was it added to Homebrew Core as the stable version of the formula?

@DomT4
Copy link
Member

@DomT4 DomT4 commented on 46be01e Sep 30, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Because they neglected to mention it on their homepage, the releases are all grouped together in one list & people forget to go rooting around Changelogs 🙈.

@RandomDSdevel
Copy link
Contributor

@RandomDSdevel RandomDSdevel commented on 46be01e Sep 30, 2016 •
edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@DomT4: Hmm, I see. When I look at the changelog, though, it appears that p11-kit has an 'odd-even' (development/stable) release cycle. As such, are you and the others OK with listing a development release as stable here in Homebrew Core in this case (iffy, IMO;) or should I open an issue or PR up for this? (I know that the latter would be better because I understand from past experience/comments that you guys tend to frown upon submitting issues in anticipation of PRs here, but I'm about to do a brew upgrade here down on my end and, as such, will be indisposed for a bit since mucking around in brew-land while the brew executable is running is a big 'no-no!' I'm perfectly fine with having the development version linger on my machine for a little while anyway until either I or somebody else gets around to fixing this due to the fact that, according to the changelog, the unstable changes don't seem to be particularly invasive even though they might still require development testing upstream. (Also, apologies in advance for the small wall of text, but I wasn't quite sure how to quickly summarize my thoughts here…)

@DomT4
Copy link
Member

@DomT4 DomT4 commented on 46be01e Sep 30, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We should probably downgrade, yes. GNOME played a part in making odd/even devel/stable popular, but even GNOME fail to follow it particularly well for stuff <1.0, so the confusion here is plenty understandable.

@RandomDSdevel
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@DomT4: Erk, sounds like that could get nasty! The changelog is pretty clear about the devs following the rules here, though, so, again, should I submit a preliminary issue now or wait until my brew upgrade finishes and submit a full-fledged PR, or will you guys take care of this?

@RandomDSdevel
Copy link
Contributor

@RandomDSdevel RandomDSdevel commented on 46be01e Sep 30, 2016 •
edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@DomT4: Oh, wait; looks my brew upgrade finished! I'll just go ahead and start working on submitting a PR to fix this myself, then…

@dwmw2
Copy link

@dwmw2 dwmw2 commented on 46be01e Sep 30, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hm, I observe that 0.23.2 is being shipped, by the upstream p11-kit maintainer, in Fedora.
I don't think it's really considered an "unstable" release. @stefwalter?

Note that the latest "stable" 0.22.1 predates even the final release of RFC7512, and there were changes between the later drafts and the final RFC which are only supported in 0.23.1 onwards. You really don't want to live without the pin-value attribute, for example.

And... now I'm confused because the git repository shows no signs of 0.23.2 ever having been released....wtf?

@RandomDSdevel
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@dwmw2: Ah, so that's where the confusion is stemming from! Should one of us perhaps notify p11-kit's maintainer that they forgot to tag v0.23.2 in the software's Git repository? We should probably seek clarification as to whether the v0.23.x series is 'devel' (as listed in the changelog,) or stable as well. I'm still working on that PR to mark v0.23.2 as 'devel' and introduce v0.22.1 as stable, though, so does anybody else want to try and contact the dev(s?)

@dwmw2
Copy link

@dwmw2 dwmw2 commented on 46be01e Sep 30, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I just prodded @stefwalter both here and on IRC, although we might not expect a response until Monday.

@RandomDSdevel
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@dwmw2: Ugh, great. I'm just about to push my PR to mark v0.22.1 as stable in Core for the time being, so we can discuss this more there. I'll notify you guys both here and with '@'-mentions on the PR once I've finished submitting it.

@RandomDSdevel
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@dunn, @ilovezfs, @DomT4, @toonetown, @dwmw2, @MikeMcQuaid, @nmav: Pull request submitted!

@stefwalter
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Indeed @dwmw2 forgot to push that tag. It's there now. Thanks for the poke.

@stefwalter
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In my opinion, 0.23.2 is stable. Hopefully we can move to a development mode where every point release is ready for consumption ...

@RandomDSdevel
Copy link
Contributor

@RandomDSdevel RandomDSdevel commented on 46be01e Oct 3, 2016 •
edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@stefwalter: Thanks for helping get that up there where it should have been in the first place! Also, I think we here on Homebrew's end are just waiting for an official announcement — say, on your guys's mailing list? — (or a pointer to one, if one already exists) as to whether v0.23.2 is stable or not and/or whether you and the other p11-kit devs are staying with an odd/even development/stable release cycle or not.

@stefwalter
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done.

@RandomDSdevel
Copy link
Contributor

@RandomDSdevel RandomDSdevel commented on 46be01e Oct 4, 2016 •
edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@stefwalter: Thanks so much for your help! Could you please post a link to that announcement here, though, so that everybody else can see it, though? Never mind; I think I found it! This is it, right?

@RandomDSdevel
Copy link
Contributor

@RandomDSdevel RandomDSdevel commented on 46be01e Oct 7, 2016 •
edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@stefwalter: Um, hello…? (Twiddles thumbs…)

@RandomDSdevel
Copy link
Contributor

@RandomDSdevel RandomDSdevel commented on 46be01e Oct 8, 2016 •
edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@stefwalter: To clarify the reason for my confusion on this subject and why I'm still pestering you about it — sorry for that, by the way! —, that mailing list post which I found (and assume is the one to which you referred when you said you had made one) wasn't exactly clear as to when the probable future direction it was expressing was going to become official policy within the p11-kit project. Are those of us here who contribute to Homebrew to take it by your relative silence on this issue that you thought your informal announcement on the matter would be enough to prompt downstream package-management projects' maintainers and contributors to just take your word for it and act accordingly, then?

@RandomDSdevel
Copy link
Contributor

@RandomDSdevel RandomDSdevel commented on 46be01e Oct 12, 2016 •
edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@DomT4, @dwmw2: Should we continue this discussion in a new issue by opening one and giving it a 'needs response' label? @stefwalter hasn't been very helpful here lately. Perhaps we could go on and take him at his word and moving on on this without him by doing what he suggested, though? What do you guys think about that?

@dwmw2
Copy link

@dwmw2 dwmw2 commented on 46be01e Oct 12, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure what else you need from Stef. He clearly stated here (as I already had done) that the 0.23.2 release can be considered "stable". He also posted to the mailing list to that effect, He also indicated that the next release should be stable too, which will be nice when it happens but isn't relevant now.

@RandomDSdevel
Copy link
Contributor

@RandomDSdevel RandomDSdevel commented on 46be01e Oct 12, 2016 •
edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@dwmw2: My apologies, then; for some reason, I incorrectly misconstrued @stefwalter's statements as indications that the p11-kit team was working toward this, but hadn't quite gotten everything in place for it (I apparently missed the mention that the current release was stable; heh, d'oh!) In any case, then, never mind my errant stupidity! I suppose you guys are waiting for me to create a pull request reinstating v0.23.2 as stable, then? I wasn't sure whether you wanted me to do that or not…

@dwmw2
Copy link

@dwmw2 dwmw2 commented on 46be01e Oct 13, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sounds like a good idea. I never wanted the PR to downgrade to be submitted/merged in the first place; I tried to interject before it was even accepted :)

@RandomDSdevel
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@dwmw2: Ah, so it's up to me, then! In that case, I'll get to that ASAP!

@stefwalter
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was on vacation ... and not checking my github notifications.

p11-kit development is moving to github. With likely a new co-maintainer. So yes, more changes in the versioning are likely.

@RandomDSdevel
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@stefwalter: Heh, sorry! Good luck with that, and I'll get the latest version back up here in brew-land soon if somebody doesn't decide to beat me to it (my apologies for the delay, but I seem to have gotten myself embroiled in #6032…; heh, whoops!)

@RandomDSdevel
Copy link
Contributor

@RandomDSdevel RandomDSdevel commented on 46be01e Oct 22, 2016 •
edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@stefwalter: Welp, looks like @ilovezfs beat me to it with #6174, so we're finally done here!

Please sign in to comment.