www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.ldc - OSX 1.5.0 and 1.6.0: ASan was missing

reply Johan Engelen <j j.nl> writes:
Hi all,
   I've just updated the release binaries for OSX for 1.5.0 
because libFuzzer and ASan runtime libraries were missing. They 
are also missing in 1.6.0 package, so I am building those anew 
too right now.

Cheers,
   Johan
Dec 25 2017
parent reply "David Nadlinger" <code klickverbot.at> writes:
On 25 Dec 2017, at 15:58, Johan Engelen via digitalmars-d-ldc wrote:

   I've just updated the release binaries for OSX for 1.5.0 because 
 libFuzzer and ASan runtime libraries were missing. They are also 
 missing in 1.6.0 package, so I am building those anew too right now.


Did you replace the existing binary files? This breaks any scripts that 
verify the archive hashes (brew does, for instance, but they thankfully 
build from source). Plus, retconning a released artefact without 
changing the version number is considered bad form for obvious reasons. 
Could you please put the original files back, and do a point release 
instead?

As for the files being missing, not sure how that would have happened 
– isn't running 1b-build-llvm-runtime.sh enough to ship them? Either 
way, any problems like this should be moot now that releases are 
automatically built.

  — David
Dec 25 2017
next sibling parent David Nadlinger <code klickverbot.at> writes:
On Monday, 25 December 2017 at 22:48:43 UTC, David Nadlinger 
wrote:

 […] a point release instead?


Or, for 1.5.0, maybe just a "-2" re-upload with a comment in the 
release notes. For the 1.6 cycle we might want to do a point 
release with https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/pull/2454 
anyway.

  — David
Dec 25 2017
prev sibling parent reply Johan Engelen <j j.nl> writes:
On Monday, 25 December 2017 at 22:48:43 UTC, David Nadlinger 
wrote:

 On 25 Dec 2017, at 15:58, Johan Engelen via digitalmars-d-ldc 
 wrote:

   I've just updated the release binaries for OSX for 1.5.0 
 because libFuzzer and ASan runtime libraries were missing. 
 They are also missing in 1.6.0 package, so I am building those 
 anew too right now.


 Did you replace the existing binary files? This breaks any 
 scripts that verify the archive hashes (brew does, for 
 instance, but they thankfully build from source). Plus, 
 retconning a released artefact without changing the version 
 number is considered bad form for obvious reasons. Could you 
 please put the original files back, and do a point release 
 instead?


I'm sorry, indeed I replaced them :/  I considered the changing 
hashes but didn't think people would care, and I made a snap 
judgement that a point release would be excessive.
I don't have the original files, so I can't put them back.


 As for the files being missing, not sure how that would have 
 happened – isn't running 1b-build-llvm-runtime.sh enough to 
 ship them?


It is. Perhaps it was forgotten or the script didn't fully work 
back then.


 Either way, any problems like this should be moot now that 
 releases are automatically built.


Indeed, 1.7.0-beta1 is fine.

-Johan
Dec 25 2017
next sibling parent reply "David Nadlinger" <code klickverbot.at> writes:
On 25 Dec 2017, at 23:32, Johan Engelen via digitalmars-d-ldc wrote:

 I'm sorry, indeed I replaced them :/  I considered the changing hashes 
 but didn't think people would care, and I made a snap judgement that a 
 point release would be excessive.
 I don't have the original files, so I can't put them back.


It's probably not that big a deal, especially for OS X, but it's 
generally one of those things that make packagers wince at 
"unprofessional upstream behaviour", etc. (Plus, it can be plain 
confusing for users, e.g. if they have an old download lying around 
still on one machine and not another.)

Since I happened to have the original files lying around still, I put 
them back and added your new builds as `1.5.0_2` and `1.6.0_2`. We 
should probably still do a 1.6.1 release soon with that shared library 
error reporting patch, since we've been getting multiple reports of 
that.

  — David
Dec 25 2017
parent reply Johan Engelen <j j.nl> writes:
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 00:38:56 UTC, David Nadlinger 
wrote:

 On 25 Dec 2017, at 23:32, Johan Engelen via digitalmars-d-ldc 
 wrote:

 I'm sorry, indeed I replaced them :/  I considered the 
 changing hashes but didn't think people would care, and I made 
 a snap judgement that a point release would be excessive.
 I don't have the original files, so I can't put them back.


 It's probably not that big a deal, especially for OS X, but 
 it's generally one of those things that make packagers wince at 
 "unprofessional upstream behaviour", etc. (Plus, it can be 
 plain confusing for users, e.g. if they have an old download 
 lying around still on one machine and not another.)

 Since I happened to have the original files lying around still, 
 I put them back and added your new builds as `1.5.0_2` and 
 `1.6.0_2`.


Thanks. Sorry again for causing the extra work.


 We should probably still do a 1.6.1 release soon with that 
 shared library error reporting patch, since we've been getting 
 multiple reports of that.


Fine by me.

-Johan
Dec 26 2017
parent kinke <noone nowhere.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 at 20:49:21 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:

 We should probably still do a 1.6.1 release soon with that 
 shared library error reporting patch, since we've been getting 
 multiple reports of that.


 Fine by me.


Not really required IMO, I mean, why only backport it for 1.6 if 
1.7 is basically ready and older versions are affected as well.

Btw, the -2 packages are still missing the JIT runtime, which was 
fixed by the automated builds too.
Dec 27 2017
prev sibling parent "David Nadlinger" <code klickverbot.at> writes:
On 25 Dec 2017, at 23:32, Johan Engelen via digitalmars-d-ldc wrote:

 I'm sorry, indeed I replaced them :/  I considered the changing hashes 
 but didn't think people would care, and I made a snap judgement that a 
 point release would be excessive.
 I don't have the original files, so I can't put them back.


It's probably not that big a deal, especially for OS X, but it's 
generally one of those things that make packagers wince at 
"unprofessional upstream behaviour", etc. (Plus, it can be plain 
confusing for users, e.g. if they have an old download lying around 
still on one machine and not another.)

Since I happened to have the original files lying around still, I put 
them back and added your new builds as `1.5.0_2` and `1.6.0_2`. We 
should probably still do a 1.6.1 release soon with that shared library 
error reporting patch, since we've been getting multiple reports of 
that.

  — David
Dec 25 2017