On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Paul Belanger <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 13-12-21 11:04 AM, Ben Langfeld wrote: > >> Congrats to all on the 12 release yesterday. There's some excellent work >> that's gone into that release and we're all very grateful and excited >> about >> using it. >> >> Unfortunately, Chef only currently supports SHA-256 checksums of >> downloaded >> files. This means that in order to properly release new builds of Asterisk >> to my machines, I need to manually download the release, verify the SHA1, >> generate a SHA-256, feed this to Chef and converge. >> >> There's work underway on Chef to support other checksum types, but it >> might >> be helpful regardless for Asterisk to include other checksum types. Would >> it be a lot of work to add at least SHA-256, if not MD5 as well, to the >> release process? >> >> The build script for asterisk releases are located in repotools[1], so > adding support should be a matter of just submitting a patch to the tracker. > > [1] http://svnview.digium.com/svn/repotools/ > It's pretty trivial to update mkrelease and releaser to create a new checksum file using sha256sum/md5sum. The question is: if we're going to generate three checksums, is it worthwhile to put them all into a single checksum file? Or do we want three separate files? Going the separate file approach would end up generating 6 files per release (3 for the release, 3 for the patch), times 3 supported release branches. Not that it would take up a lot of disk space, but it would be more stuff to browse through. Matt -- Matthew Jordan Digium, Inc. | Engineering Manager 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA Check us out at: http://digium.com & http://asterisk.org
-- _____________________________________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-dev mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
