2011/2/25 Charles Lepple <[email protected]> > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Arnaud Quette <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Charles, > > > > 2011/2/18 Charles Lepple <[email protected]> > >> > >> 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] > >>> > >>> 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 updated the documentation, but it's simple as downloading > the > >> 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). 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
_______________________________________________ Nut-upsdev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev
