[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Updated CMakeLists for qhull-2012.1
From: |
Brad Barber |
Subject: |
Re: Updated CMakeLists for qhull-2012.1 |
Date: |
Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:05:50 -0500 |
Yes, the tarball did change. That's been my practice for a while.
You should use the most recent tarball for the checksums. The other two
tarballs were in place for two days and two and a half weeks resp. Except for
those users that happened on the site, only Octave maintainers and a few others
knew about the previous releases.
This release was specifically for Octave, so you heard about it first. Sorry
for the trouble that it's caused. Going forward, I can wait to notify you.
--Brad
At 05:17 AM 2/24/2012, Thomas Weber wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 09:33:11PM -0500, Brad Barber wrote:
>> At 05:27 PM 2/22/2012, Thomas Weber wrote:
>> >On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 11:17:04PM -0500, Brad Barber wrote:
>> >> Hi all,
>> >> Petr Gajdos identified a problem with CMakeLists in the recent
>> >> update to qhull-2012.1. It is fixed on qhull.org and
>> >> gitorious.org/qhull.
>> >
>> >Does that mean that the tarball changed, but the version number stayed
>> >the same?
>>
>> The CMakeList version number changed from
>> 6.3.1.1490
>> to
>> 6.3.1.1494
>>
>> You should not try to support 1490 -- it named the library file
>> liblibqhull.so liblibqhull.so.6
>
>Thanks, but that was not what I wanted to know. Did the tarball
>qhull-2012.1-src.tgz change?
>
>Distributions perform check-summing on source tarballs - uploading a different
>one with the same name is a problem for them.
>
>Thanks
> Thomas
>
>
>
>-----
>No virus found in this message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>Version: 10.0.1424 / Virus Database: 2113/4836 - Release Date: 02/27/12