GnuCash 2.6.4 in Debian
jralls at ceridwen.us
Sun Sep 28 15:53:38 EDT 2014
On Sep 28, 2014, at 12:30 PM, Sébastien Villemot <sebastien at debian.org> wrote:
> Le dimanche 28 septembre 2014 à 12:21 -0700, John Ralls a écrit :
>> On Sep 28, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Sébastien Villemot <sebastien at debian.org> wrote:
>>> Le dimanche 28 septembre 2014 à 10:04 -0700, John Ralls a écrit :
>>>> On Sep 28, 2014, at 9:49 AM, Sébastien Villemot <sebastien at debian.org> wrote:
>>>>> Le dimanche 28 septembre 2014 à 11:34 -0500, Tommy Trussell a écrit :
>>>>>> I just noticed GnuCash 2.6.4 has been uploaded to Debian Unstable, but
>>>>>> haven't seen a notice here or on the GnuCash.org web site for the release
>>>>>> of 2.6.4.
>>>>> I indeed uploaded to Debian the 2.6.4 tarball that is available at:
>>>>> If I was so quick to notice it, it's because the release had been
>>>>> announced long in advance
>>>>> (http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Release_Schedule) and also because the
>>>>> Debian "Jessie" freeze is getting close and I did not want to miss the
>>>>> I guess the release announcement is currently being prepared.
>>>> The release has not yet officially happened, it’s waiting on the Windows and Mac builds. Tagging the release and staging the tarballs has to happen the night before the release to set up for those builds. If you’ve already released the tarballs to Debian please pull them until after the announcement hits the lists. It’s quite possible that a problem with either of those builds will cause me to make changes to the tarballs which would make your Debian package mismatch the official release.
>>> It is too late for this release, but I'll wait for the official
>>> announcement for the next releases.
>>> However I think that you should not publish on SourceForge source
>>> tarballs that are not considered as final releases. This is very
>>> confusing, and can lead to all sorts of misunderstandings and problems
>>> (as happened to me). Either use a different numbering scheme (like
>>> release candidates with a -rcN suffix), or keep them private.
>> It’s only confusing because you jumped the gun and grabbed the tarballs before I announced the release. But I just experimented with the “staging” feature which lets me hide directories (you shouldn’t be able to see 2.6.4 in the list, though you can still get at it if you type it into the URL bar). I’ll use that from now on.
> Well, it's confusing because the unreleased tarball is at the exact same
> place and with the exact same filename than the final tarball! And I
> have a script that automatically checks for new tarballs at that place
> (as do most packages in Debian and other distributions).
> Anyway, thanks for considering to use a private directory from now on.
> That should fix the issue.
> For the 2.6.4 case, please let me know if you modify the source tarball.
> In that case, I will reupload the new tarball in Debian (with a slight
> modification of the Debian version number, something like 2.6.4+final).
I don’t know what other Debian builders are doing, but I’ll note that GC2.6.4 hasn’t showed up on Fedora or OpenSuse. Besides, you said earlier
> If I was so quick to notice it, it's because the release had been
> announced long in advance
> (http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Release_Schedule) and also because the
> Debian "Jessie" freeze is getting close and I did not want to miss the
So which is it, automatic script or you being too eager? If it’s really an automatic script, I doubt setting staged on the SF directory will fix the issue because your script won’t see that. Ours don’t, and download the tarballs just fine.
Having the same name and same place is necessary because our scripts for building need to point to that same place, otherwise they have to be updated twice: Once to build the package and again so that others can use them after the release.
More information about the gnucash-devel