md5 sums (or sha1 for extra security) could be useful if there's ever
any interest in signing spkgs in the future (official or 3rd party
ones).
- Robert
On Oct 21, 2007, at 3:28 PM, Pablo De Napoli wrote:
My idea was actually the second one, so nothing has to be changed in
current sage
I think you can easily make tar-archives that contain a checksum, if
you agree on some extremely mild file naming convention for such a
checksum (i.e., the archive is not allowed to contain a filename that
clashes with the file that stores the checksum). Of course, the key is
that when you add
On 10/22/07, Nils Bruin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think you can easily make tar-archives that contain a checksum, if
you agree on some extremely mild file naming convention for such a
checksum (i.e., the archive is not allowed to contain a filename that
clashes with the file that stores the
I'm currently working on ticket #329
My idea is adding to each .spkg file a .spkg.md5 file with the md5checksum
This should prevent file corruption.
I've already reimplemented the md5sum standard utility (from the
coreutils package) in python (using the md5 module), so that we
don't need to add
My idea was actually the second one, so nothing has to be changed in
current sage packages.I don't see this as so painfull (as the
Debian is currently doing something similar for debian packages
(actually for each Debian package there are 3 sources files:
a .dsc file, with description and
