Re: Posted zsh 5.9

[Daniel Shahaf <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

dana wrote on Sat, May 14, 2022 at 15:59:35 -0500:
> * creating-a-release doesn't explicitly say where to put the zsh-keyring
>   file for stable releases. (It's obvious for test releases since there's
>   only one place it could go.) I guess for that reason i did not upload it
>   to SF when i posted 5.8.1. This time i put it under zsh/ (and not
>   zsh-doc/). Is that the intention?

The intention is to have the public keys easily available to anyone who
downloads the artifacts themselves, particularly as «gpg --keyserver foo
--recv-key $fingerprint» isn't as reliable as it used to be.

For zsh.org there's little question where to put the keyring file, as
there's only one relevant directory.  Any reason not to upload
zsh-keyring.asc to zsh.org/pub?

For sf.net… we could simplify the directory there structure and make it
similar to zsh.org/pub/ while at it (no reason to have two different
directory structures), but for the time being, uploading the keyring to
/zsh/5.9/ seems reasonable.  It would be a little less obvious for
anyone downloading only the docs tarball, but it's not a major issue.

(Aside: zsh.org/pub/ has contained a pubring.pgp last modified in 1998.
I've just moved it to zsh.org/pub/old/ to prevent any confusion.)

> * The release-update-versions script in the web repo failed to complete
>   because, despite being passed the --content-disposition option, wget was
>   not fully respecting the attachment name for the files it downloaded from
>   SF, resulting in the addition of query-string parameters to the ends of
>   the file names. I hacked around this by making the script do a rename
>   pass after the wget, not sure if we want to come up with something nicer.
>   (`curl -LJO` names the files correctly, fwiw)
> 

For me, «wget --content-disposition
https://sourceforge.net/projects/zsh/files/zsh/5.9/zsh-5.9.tar.xz/download»;
DTRTs with both wget 1.20.1-1.1 and wget 1.21.3-1+b1 on Debian (buster
and sid respectively).

> * This has probably been discussed before, but is it deliberate that the
>   (roff-formatted) man pages are in the source archive and not in the doc
>   one? The Homebrew package maintainers don't seem to be aware of this (they
>   only pull the HTML files from the doc archive), and i wanted to confirm
>   that that's how it's meant to be before i submit a PR

I think the man pages are there so yodl won't be a build dependency?
I.e., so people who build from source but don't have yodl will still
have man pages to install?

I hope workers/43692 didn't break this…

Daniel