Re: Updated CMakeLists for qhull-2012.1

[Brad Barber]

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