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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.