Fw: ISC BIND 9.8.2 followup announcement

[Larissa Shapiro]

Hi Liman,

Thank you, this is noted. I am sorry it has happened twice, we are
working on a process to ensure this does not happen again.

Best Regards,

Larissa
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:31:31 +0200
> From: Lars-Johan Liman <liman at autonomica.se>
> To: Evan Hunt <each at isc.org>
> Cc: bind-workers at isc.org, shane at isc.org, stephenm at isc.org
> Subject: Re: ISC BIND 9.8.2 followup announcement
>
>
> You did it again. :-(
>
> I remember having a long animated discussion with Michael Graff about
> this, and I thought the message had gone through.
>
> _NEVER_EVER_ release two tar balls with identical names and different
> content. It will bite you in your behinds for ever more. And ours.
>
> In three months' time, I will have no idea that this happened (because I
> forget things), and I will find two tar balls with different checksums,
> and it will take me 30 minutes to figure out which is what and why. And
> then it will happen again three months later. Multiply me with 100s of
> users, and it's a serious waste of our time. You may argue "but it
> doesn't matter, because there is no change to the code!". That is of
> course true, but 3 months from now I will not know that until I have
> verified. Which takes the mentioned 30 minutes. So this complaint is not
> about you issuing bad code, it's about the confusion that you create by
> putting different things in boxes with the same "bar code" on them.
>
> Please don't put this burden from your mistake (however small) onto our
> shoulders.
>
> Version numbers are cheap. Just up one (or call it 9.8.2a or something)
> and bake a new tar ball, but NOT the identical name. It's much better
> that you do the work _once_, instead of us repeating it multiple times
> across the 'net.
>
> And _do_ make sure the version number _inside_ is the same as the name
> of the tar ball.
>
> Think of tar balls as of RFCs. If we change the contents after they've
> issued, we're heading down a very bad path ...
>
> So, get 9.8.2a out there ASAP, so that everybody moves forward - away
> from the confusion.
>
> (Still, I consider myself a lucky guy, because I'm on this list, so I
> actually get to know about it. I weep for those who aren't.)
>
> 				Respectfully yours,
> 				  /Liman
> #----------------------------------------------------------------------
> # Lars-Johan Liman, M.Sc.   ! E-mail/SIP/Jabber: liman at autonomica.se
> # Senior Systems Specialist ! Tel: +46 8 - 562 860 12
> # Autonomica/Netnod, Sweden ! http://www.autonomica.se/
> #----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> each at isc.org:
>> A cosmetic flaw was found in BIND 9.8.2 after publication:  the
>> release notes for BIND 9.8.1 were inadvertedly left in the tarball.
>> As this caused confusion among some users, ISC is re-publishing
>> BIND 9.8.2 with the spurious files removed.  Absolutely no other
>> changes have been made to the release.
>> As a result of this change, maintainers of distibutions which pull
>> directly from ISC may need to update checksums for the BIND 9.8.2
>> tarball.  No other users are likely to be affected.
>> New tarball:
>>     SHA256 (bind-9.8.2.tar.gz) =
>>         7f30faf98c59353d26eef40ce9049de91aa5bb003321edbba14eeed974beda71
>>     SHA1 (bind-9.8.2.tar.gz) =
>>         e2c1230e65cb609624c21260e5508f6ec1bf0a8e
>>     MD5 (bind-9.8.2.tar.gz) =
>>         4c47675e093f33b1fa70536afaf0cce6
>> Old tarball:
>>     SHA256 (bind-9.8.2.tar.gz) =
>>         2ce26bf9fa36540920f9d1a526c48ce50474a3f3a0ac27c1138152869e1d2c7e
>>     SHA1 (bind-9.8.2.tar.gz) =
>>         09f0b18bde0438186d6639f08c17db3b98e81c17
>>     MD5 (bind-9.8.2.tar.gz) =
>>         9d92bed18795a35ebe629f715cf41353
>
>> -- 
>> Evan Hunt -- each at isc.org
>> Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
>


-- 
===========================
Larissa Shapiro
BIND and DHCP Product Manager, Internet Systems Consortium
larissas at isc.org   +1 650 423 1335   http://www.isc.org
Need BIND or DHCP support? Look to the experts!