[Nut-upsdev] [nut-commits] svn commit r2832 - in trunk/docs: . website
John Bayly
freebsd.ports at tipstrade.net
Tue Mar 1 15:59:28 UTC 2011
On 01/03/2011 15:20, Arnaud Quette wrote:
>
>
> 2011/3/1 John Bayly <freebsd.ports at tipstrade.net
> <mailto:freebsd.ports at tipstrade.net>>
>
> On 25/02/2011 20:35, Arnaud Quette wrote:
>> Hey Charles,
>>
>> 2011/2/25 Charles Lepple <clepple at gmail.com
>> <mailto:clepple at gmail.com>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 3:21 AM, Arnaud Quette
>> <aquette.dev at gmail.com <mailto:aquette.dev at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > 2011/2/25 Charles Lepple <clepple at gmail.com
>> <mailto:clepple at gmail.com>>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Arnaud Quette
>> <aquette.dev at gmail.com <mailto:aquette.dev at gmail.com>>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Hi Charles,
>> >> >
>> >> > 2011/2/18 Charles Lepple <clepple at gmail.com
>> <mailto:clepple at gmail.com>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Feb 17, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Arnaud Quette wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hi John,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 2011/1/17 John Bayly
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On 14/01/2011 20:40, Arnaud Quette wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Author: aquette
>> >> >>>> Date: Fri Jan 14 20:40:06 2011
>> >> >>>> New Revision: 2832
>> >> >>>> URL:
>> http://trac.networkupstools.org/projects/nut/changeset/2832
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> +link:http://www.networkupstools.org/source/2.6/nut-2.6.0.tar.gz.sig[signature]
>> <http://www.networkupstools.org/source/2.6/nut-2.6.0.tar.gz.sig%5Bsignature%5D>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> May I suggest that you also provide checksums for the
>> tarball? I'm
>> >> >>> updating the FreeBSD port, and wanted to verify the
>> SHA256 sum. As
>> >> >>> it's been
>> >> >>> downloaded from the NUT website, I know the odds of
>> the source being
>> >> >>> tainted
>> >> >>> are astronomical, but if it's for a distribution, I
>> thought I'd be
>> >> >>> extra
>> >> >>> cautious.
>> >> >>> As it is I've verified the GPG sig (never used it
>> before) and used the
>> >> >>> computed SHA sum.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I've added a SHA256 hash, and referenced it in the
>> download section:
>> >> >> http://www.networkupstools.org/download.html
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I've not yet uphdated the documentation, but it's
>> simple as downloading
>> >> >> te
>> >> >> nut archive and the matching .sha256 file. Then using:
>> >> >> $ sha256sum -c nut-2.6.0.tar.gz.sha256
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Arnaud,
>> >> >> I go through a similar set of steps for Fink packages.
>> If there is a
>> >> >> GPG
>> >> >> signature, I'll verify that, since it provides a little
>> more
>> >> >> chain-of-trust
>> >> >> information. However, if I am just downloading a single
>> file, it is
>> >> >> typically easier to just verify the hash by inspection
>> - that is, with
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> SHA256 on the web page rather than a separate file
>> download.
>> >> >> Also, there is a bit more of an audit trail if the hash
>> is in our web
>> >> >> pages in SVN.
>> >> >
>> >> > I may be too far away, in other consideration...
>> >> > but, are you saying that it would be better to embed the
>> SHA256 hash
>> >> > directly on the web page, or simply that searching for
>> this file may be
>> >> > too
>> >> > hard for the user?
>> >> >
>> >> > for the former, the web page always need a modification
>> for new
>> >> > publication
>> >> > (svn commit then push on www.n.o <http://www.n.o>). So
>> changing the stable release name,
>> >> > and
>> >> > at the same time adding the hash would not be a problem.
>> >>
>> >> I like this because there is a history of the hashes in
>> SVN. The
>> >> .sha256 file is not version controlled.
>> >
>> > nor the root file it's hashing...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > for the latter, the file is named <release-file>.sha256,
>> so for example
>> >> > nut-2.6.0.tar.gz.sha256, which allows checking automation.
>> >>
>> >> I guess I'm not sure I see the advantage of putting it in
>> a separate file.
>> >
>> > I see no problem.
>> > can you please do the mod?
>> >
>> > cheers,
>> > Arnaud
>>
>> Committed as r2910.
>>
>>
>> thanks, I've just 'moved it to prod'.
>>
>> note that I will however leave the .sha256 file available in the
>> sources/ dir, and will distribute future files too.
>> Documentation will be using it (ie 'sha256sum -c
>> nut-X.Y.Z.tar.gz.sh256') since I personally find it more
>> convenient, and automatable.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Arnaud
>>
> Just realised that you added the checksum a while ago. Thanks for
> that.
>
>
> welcome, we kept you cc'ed for that ;-)
> btw, any comment on the .sha256 file Vs. hash inside the HTML page?
>
> cheers,
> Arnaud
> --
> Linux / Unix Expert R&D - Eaton - http://powerquality.eaton.com
> Network UPS Tools (NUT) Project Leader - http://www.networkupstools.org/
> Debian Developer - http://www.debian.org
> Free Software Developer - http://arnaud.quette.free.fr/
>
I was getting them, but have been fairly manic recently so this is the
first time I managed to check.
As for the file vs. inside HTML, if it's an either-or choice, I'd go
with the file as (as you say) it's more scriptable. I suppose I'm more
used to checksums rather than GPG signatures as it's how FreeBSD
verifies ports (I had to install the gnupg port just to verify the
signature :-)
Personally though, I think the more options the better, I can't see any
disadvantage with both options.
Cheers,
John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/nut-upsdev/attachments/20110301/1a51e08c/attachment.htm>
More information about the Nut-upsdev
mailing list