[Nut-upsdev] [nut-commits] svn commit r2832 - in trunk/docs: . website

[Arnaud Quette]

2011/2/25 Charles Lepple <clepple at gmail.com>

> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Arnaud Quette <aquette.dev at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Charles,
> >
> > 2011/2/18 Charles Lepple <clepple at gmail.com>
> >>
> >> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/nut-upsdev/attachments/20110225/f930b6c6/attachment-0001.htm>