Hi, Denis

Yes, we have a ticket that already takes this into account:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5817
I think we can create both sha-256 and sha-512 checksums.

Best regards
Oleg

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 1:51 AM, Denis Magda <[email protected]> wrote:

> Igniters, especially the release managers,
>
> Please consider these changes and recommendations for the next release. Do
> we have any ticket that already takes this into account?
>
> —
> Denis
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: "Henk P. Penning" <[email protected]>
> > Subject: .sha Release Distribution Policy
> > Date: August 16, 2017 at 1:55:57 AM PDT
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Reply-To: [email protected]
> >
> > Hi PMC,
> >
> >   The Release Distribution Policy[1] changed regarding .sha files.
> >   See under "Cryptographic Signatures and Checksums Requirements" [2].
> >
> >  Old policy :
> >
> >    -- use extension .sha for any SHA checksum (SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-512)
> >
> >  New policy :
> >
> >     -- use .sha1 for a SHA-1 checksum
> >     -- use .sha256 for a SHA-256 checksum
> >     -- use .sha512 for a SHA-512 checksum
> >     -- [*] .sha should contain a SHA-1
> >
> >  Why this change ?
> >
> >     -- Verifying a checksum under the old policy is/was not handy.
> >        You have to inspect the .sha to find out which algorithm
> >        should be used ; or try them all (SHA-1, SHA256, etc).
> >        The new scheme avoids this ambiguity.
> >     -- The last point[*] was only added for clarity. Most of the
> >        old, stale .sha's contain a SHA-1. The relatively new .sha's
> >        contain a SHA-512. The expectation is that the last catagory will
> >        disappear, when active projects adapt to the 'new' convention.
> >
> >  Impact :
> >
> >     -- Should be none ; many projects already use the 'new' convention.
> >     -- Please ask your release managers to use .sha1, .sha256, .sha512
> >        instead of the .sha extension.
> >     -- Please fix your build-tools if you have any.
> >
> >  Piggyback :
> >
> >     -- The policy requires a .md5 for every package ;
> >        providing a .sha512 is recommended.
> >        Since MD5 is essentially broken, it is to be expected that
> >        in the future a .sha512 will be required.
> >        Perhaps it is wize to start providing .sha512's
> >        with your releases if you do not already do so.
> >
> >     -- Visit http://mirror-vm.apache.org/checker/
> >        to check the health of your /dist/-area ;
> >        my stuff ; any feedback is most welcome.
> >
> >  Thanks ; regards,
> >
> >  Henk Penning
> >
> >   [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution
> >   [2] http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution#sigs-and-sums
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > Henk P. Penning ; apache.org infrastructure volunteer.
> > [email protected] ; http://mirror-vm.apache.org/~henkp/
>
>

Reply via email to