Graham Leggett schrieb: > Guenter Knauf wrote: > >>> Can you point out where this is documented? >> I'll try to dig that up. > > If you can, please. I think what I meant were the pointers on the download side: http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi see down last sentence - however its not explained how to check automatically; but I volunteer to add a section for this.
> It would be better to use a common format if one does exist. what I propose *is* the common format, and - as Rainer also agreed - the only one which can be machine-verified. >>> With the downside that what you propose only works on Linux. >> huh? nope - these tools are available on Win32 too; and where is a >> downside at all? > > Ok, now what you propose only works on Linux and Windows. *BSD? MacOSX? > Others? http://www.freebsdsoftware.org/sysutils/coreutils.html http://coreutils.darwinports.com/ Also its no reason to force *all* users to verify manually only because some OS might lack of any of the checksum tools. > Seriously, it can't be that hard to compare one checksum to another surely? if its the first or last byte then not - if its byte 29 which is the only different then it I doubt that you see that with a quick look, and without copy&paste both checksums into a text file each in separate lines ... Anyway, since its not hard to modify the roll.sh to produce a machine-readable format I think we should use it - it makes no difference for those who love to verify by eye :) Gün.
