Hey Charles,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/2/25 Charles Lepple <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:clepple@gmail.com">clepple@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5">On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 3:21 AM, Arnaud Quette <<a href="mailto:aquette.dev@gmail.com">aquette.dev@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> 2011/2/25 Charles Lepple <<a href="mailto:clepple@gmail.com">clepple@gmail.com</a>><br>
>><br>
>> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Arnaud Quette <<a href="mailto:aquette.dev@gmail.com">aquette.dev@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>> > Hi Charles,<br>
>> ><br>
>> > 2011/2/18 Charles Lepple <<a href="mailto:clepple@gmail.com">clepple@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> On Feb 17, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Arnaud Quette wrote:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Hi John,<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> 2011/1/17 John Bayly<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> On 14/01/2011 20:40, Arnaud Quette wrote:<br>
>> >>>><br>
>> >>>> Author: aquette<br>
>> >>>> Date: Fri Jan 14 20:40:06 2011<br>
>> >>>> New Revision: 2832<br>
>> >>>> URL: <a href="http://trac.networkupstools.org/projects/nut/changeset/2832" target="_blank">http://trac.networkupstools.org/projects/nut/changeset/2832</a><br>
>> >>>><br>
>> >>>><br>
>> >>>><br>
>> >>>> +link:<a href="http://www.networkupstools.org/source/2.6/nut-2.6.0.tar.gz.sig[signature]" target="_blank">http://www.networkupstools.org/source/2.6/nut-2.6.0.tar.gz.sig[signature]</a><br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> May I suggest that you also provide checksums for the tarball? I'm<br>
>> >>> updating the FreeBSD port, and wanted to verify the SHA256 sum. As<br>
>> >>> it's been<br>
>> >>> downloaded from the NUT website, I know the odds of the source being<br>
>> >>> tainted<br>
>> >>> are astronomical, but if it's for a distribution, I thought I'd be<br>
>> >>> extra<br>
>> >>> cautious.<br>
>> >>> As it is I've verified the GPG sig (never used it before) and used the<br>
>> >>> computed SHA sum.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> I've added a SHA256 hash, and referenced it in the download section:<br>
>> >> <a href="http://www.networkupstools.org/download.html" target="_blank">http://www.networkupstools.org/download.html</a><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> I've not yet updated the documentation, but it's simple as downloading<br>
>> >> the<br>
>> >> nut archive and the matching .sha256 file. Then using:<br>
>> >> $ sha256sum -c nut-2.6.0.tar.gz.sha256<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Arnaud,<br>
>> >> I go through a similar set of steps for Fink packages. If there is a<br>
>> >> GPG<br>
>> >> signature, I'll verify that, since it provides a little more<br>
>> >> chain-of-trust<br>
>> >> information. However, if I am just downloading a single file, it is<br>
>> >> typically easier to just verify the hash by inspection - that is, with<br>
>> >> the<br>
>> >> SHA256 on the web page rather than a separate file download.<br>
>> >> Also, there is a bit more of an audit trail if the hash is in our web<br>
>> >> pages in SVN.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > I may be too far away, in other consideration...<br>
>> > but, are you saying that it would be better to embed the SHA256 hash<br>
>> > directly on the web page, or simply that searching for this file may be<br>
>> > too<br>
>> > hard for the user?<br>
>> ><br>
>> > for the former, the web page always need a modification for new<br>
>> > publication<br>
>> > (svn commit then push on www.n.o). So changing the stable release name,<br>
>> > and<br>
>> > at the same time adding the hash would not be a problem.<br>
>><br>
>> I like this because there is a history of the hashes in SVN. The<br>
>> .sha256 file is not version controlled.<br>
><br>
> nor the root file it's hashing...<br>
><br>
>><br>
>> > for the latter, the file is named <release-file>.sha256, so for example<br>
>> > nut-2.6.0.tar.gz.sha256, which allows checking automation.<br>
>><br>
>> I guess I'm not sure I see the advantage of putting it in a separate file.<br>
><br>
> I see no problem.<br>
> can you please do the mod?<br>
><br>
> cheers,<br>
> Arnaud<br>
<br>
</div></div>Committed as r2910.<br></blockquote></div><br>thanks, I've just 'moved it to prod'.<br clear="all"><br>note that I will however leave the .sha256 file available in the sources/ dir, and will distribute future files too. <br>
Documentation will be using it (ie 'sha256sum -c nut-X.Y.Z.tar.gz.sh256') since I personally find it more convenient, and <span id="result_box" class="short_text" lang="en"><span title="Cliquer ici pour voir d'autres traductions" class="hps">automatable</span></span>.<br>
<br>cheers,<br>Arnaud<br><br>