Re: stable/9 still looking for packages at 9-current

> On 9 January 2012 18:16, Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> Excellent!  You've shown the ability to understand flat, declarative,
>> sentences that have no qualifying phrases.
>>
> FWIW, this was more a sarcastic sentence

I am being sarcastic because I am frustrated.

I am frustrated because I am having to repeat myself.

> pointing out that FreeBSD is currently officially distributing
> non-released build in a directory which might leads users to consider
> this is the official release, thus misleading them.

I pointed out no such thing.

I am not misleading anyone, nor is the Project.  You are.

It is not "officially distributing".  It won't be "officially distributed"
until, and only until, the signed email goes out.  This is the third email
in a row where I have made this flat, factual, statement.

Until that time, the contents of various websites is irrelevant.

That mail will not go out until (among other things):

 - the Release Engineering team determines there are no last-minute
   gotchas,

 - all the bits are on all the mirrors, so that users will not go to
   their local mirror, find it not there yet, then pound on the master,
   bringing it to a crawl,

 - the Release Notes are in their final form,

 - a news announcement is in its final form,

and other things that I, not being on re_at_, am probably not aware of.

These things are the *preparation* steps.  They all have to be in
place to make sure that everything is ready for when the mass downloads
begin.  This is to prevent people who are installing the release from
having a bad experience, e.g., with missing documentation.

> > Do you expect me to consult freebsd-announce_at_, verify the signature
> > of the announce, the hash of the ISOs, etc. to consider that 9.0 has
> > been released ?

That is exactly what I expect.  In fact, I insist on it.  And the reason
I insist on it is because this is the documented procedure, and has been
for at least 14 releases in the last 6 years, and most likely many before
I became active.

> > No, I see 9.0 ISOs in a `releases' directory, I assume it has been
> > released, whatever your spreading process is.

You assumed so, posted, were told it was not correct, and cannot seem
to accept that answer.  I'm sorry, but it's the correct answer, and all
the argumentation in the world will not change that answer.

> > Btw, none of the CHECKSUMS files are signed on the FTP.

Perhaps that's part of the preparatory steps.

mcl