Vincent Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 Congrats on releasing Alpha 5! I look forward to playing it and checking out all the new features. However, it looks like there might be a problem with the release tarballs, i.e.$ wget -q http://releases.wildfiregames.com/0ad-r09530-alpha-unix-build.tar.gz$ tar xzf 0ad-r09530-alpha-unix-build.tar.gzgzip: stdin: invalid compressed data--crc errortar: Child returned status 1tar: Error is not recoverable: exiting nowThe xz-compressed archive works just fine though. Is it perhaps possible to provide hashsums for the tarballs, so it'd be possible to confirm whether or not it might be a faulty download or something like that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feneur Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 Alpha 5 is not yet released. Our hope is to release towards the end of this week. We have however started testing the release builds/release tarballs etc, so thanks for the bug report Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ykkrosh Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 Better to have bug reports before it's released than after Is it perhaps possible to provide hashsums for the tarballs$ ls -l 0ad-r09530-*-rw-r--r-- 1 philip philip 5917753 2011-05-17 14:31 0ad-r09530-alpha-unix-build.tar.gz-rw-r--r-- 1 philip philip 4167180 2011-05-17 14:16 0ad-r09530-alpha-unix-build.tar.xz-rw-r--r-- 1 philip philip 168552462 2011-05-17 14:38 0ad-r09530-alpha-unix-data.tar.gz-rw-r--r-- 1 philip philip 142931332 2011-05-17 14:21 0ad-r09530-alpha-unix-data.tar.xz-rw-r--r-- 1 philip philip 169845547 2011-05-17 14:27 0ad-r09530-alpha-win32.exe$ sha256sum 0ad-r09530-*713ce7f7f3a140b7a8b020af9acb991512f477620520fee8fd4d6e7bd76b1ed4 0ad-r09530-alpha-unix-build.tar.gz4cbad45b085b412b48c4f3e27e8d808ff64d51d3ae479fd2ac108768af6a5336 0ad-r09530-alpha-unix-build.tar.xzc59c78e16260a401467a4b11c228a803fdd103f444a6dfe30dee321d45665153 0ad-r09530-alpha-unix-data.tar.gz646f79b17f92872ff9a67d80ee5702d07219f8b3e3c91b438ce79fac2c33ed14 0ad-r09530-alpha-unix-data.tar.xzd6d3ea27ec04841f9a695fefdd98e5987f5b77928c16275df943fe19e759ccea 0ad-r09530-alpha-win32.exeThey all seem to extract fine for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feneur Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 Better to have bug reports before it's released than after $ ls -l 0ad-r09530-*-rw-r--r-- 1 philip philip 5917753 2011-05-17 14:31 0ad-r09530-alpha-unix-build.tar.gz-rw-r--r-- 1 philip philip 4167180 2011-05-17 14:16 0ad-r09530-alpha-unix-build.tar.xz-rw-r--r-- 1 philip philip 168552462 2011-05-17 14:38 0ad-r09530-alpha-unix-data.tar.gz-rw-r--r-- 1 philip philip 142931332 2011-05-17 14:21 0ad-r09530-alpha-unix-data.tar.xz-rw-r--r-- 1 philip philip 169845547 2011-05-17 14:27 0ad-r09530-alpha-win32.exe$ sha256sum 0ad-r09530-*713ce7f7f3a140b7a8b020af9acb991512f477620520fee8fd4d6e7bd76b1ed4 0ad-r09530-alpha-unix-build.tar.gz4cbad45b085b412b48c4f3e27e8d808ff64d51d3ae479fd2ac108768af6a5336 0ad-r09530-alpha-unix-build.tar.xzc59c78e16260a401467a4b11c228a803fdd103f444a6dfe30dee321d45665153 0ad-r09530-alpha-unix-data.tar.gz646f79b17f92872ff9a67d80ee5702d07219f8b3e3c91b438ce79fac2c33ed14 0ad-r09530-alpha-unix-data.tar.xzd6d3ea27ec04841f9a695fefdd98e5987f5b77928c16275df943fe19e759ccea 0ad-r09530-alpha-win32.exeThey all seem to extract fine for me.Would it be possible to add a checksum column to the releases page? Would make it easier for people to find the info Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ykkrosh Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 I used to have that on the Linux / OS X pages, but I think I removed it because it took not quite zero effort to maintain and it wasn't clear anyone ever cared about it, and the SourceForge page will already tell you the checksums if you need (though not for alpha 5 since that hasn't been uploaded there yet). Could add it back if there's much demand, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feneur Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 Ah, ok. No problem, just thought if it was quick to add Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Posted May 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 Oh, I thought that the release of r09530 tarballs meant that Alpha 5 was out already...sorry about that.The hashsums match, but I still seem to be unable to extract the gzipped tarball. I'm also perfectly capable of extracting other gzipped tarballs without a single problem, so I'm sort of stumped at the moment. But the xz tarball works, so I don't mind all that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fabio Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 What about changing the name of the tarball of the released version? Specifically they are missing an official version number and packagers have to invent one (e.g. official Ubuntu packages are using 0.0.0+r09049-1~10.10~wfg1).Rather than using 0ad-r09530-alpha-... it could be 0ad-0.0.4-... for alpha 4 (the svn revision number is already visible on the menu screen) or if you want to include it in the package something like 0ad-0.0.4.9049-... (with r0 removed). The beta version could then use 0.X.0, while the final ones 1.0.0. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fcxSanya Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 $ wget -q http://releases.wildfiregames.com/0ad-r09530-alpha-unix-build.tar.gz$ tar xzf 0ad-r09530-alpha-unix-build.tar.gzI just tried to execute the same commands, all looks working properly for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ykkrosh Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 Oh, I thought that the release of r09530 tarballs meant that Alpha 5 was out already...sorry about that.They're uploaded a few days before announcing the release for some quick testing and setting up packages etc, and sometimes we need to fix things and delete them and upload a newer version, so it's best not to link people to the release files before the release has been announced, but it's good to test it in advance The hashsums match, but I still seem to be unable to extract the gzipped tarball. I'm also perfectly capable of extracting other gzipped tarballs without a single problem, so I'm sort of stumped at the moment. But the xz tarball works, so I don't mind all that much. What version of gzip do you have? ("gzip -V" should say). The .gz files are created by 7zip so maybe it's doing something unusual that certain versions of gzip don't like, or something?Rather than using 0ad-r09530-alpha-... it could be 0ad-0.0.4-... for alpha 4 (the svn revision number is already visible on the menu screen) or if you want to include it in the package something like 0ad-0.0.4.9049-... (with r0 removed). The beta version could then use 0.X.0, while the final ones 1.0.0.I think the danger of using version numbers is that they can be wrongly meaningful, e.g. 0.0.1 sounds like an extremely primitive first version, and an upgrade 0.1.0 -> 0.1.1 sounds like a very minor change, and a version 0.9.0 sounds quite close to 1.0.0, etc. I think that was why I wanted to use SVN revision numbers instead - these releases are effectively just snapshots of SVN, and we're not claiming anything about the current state or the magnitude of changes etc.They're a stupid idea since they tie us to a linear non-branching SVN-based development model, though - we can't apply a bugfix to a release if there's been lots of other SVN activity in the meantime. That's not been a serious problem yet but should probably be sorted out before starting a hopefully-more-stable beta release series (and maybe have 0.1.0 for first beta, 0.1.1 for bugfixes to first beta, 0.2.0 for second beta, 1.0.0 for first release, 1.1.0 for first significant changes after release, etc, or something like that) - I'm not sure if it's worth the inconvenience of changing now in the middle of alpha releases, but beta seems like a good opportunity to fix some of the current mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Posted May 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 What version of gzip do you have? ("gzip -V" should say). The .gz files are created by 7zip so maybe it's doing something unusual that certain versions of gzip don't like, or something?$ gzip -Vgzip 1.3.12Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.Copyright (C) 1993 Jean-loup Gailly.This is free software. You may redistribute copies of it under the terms ofthe GNU General Public License <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>.There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.Written by Jean-loup Gailly.It's the stock gzip that comes with Debian. Hmmm...I just did a bit of poking around and came up with Debian bug #627121 and it looks like I might not be the only one who's experiencing this problem. I have no idea what may be causing it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ykkrosh Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 Hmm, I have gzip 1.3.12 on 32-bit Ubuntu 8.04 which works fine, so that's odd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.