[asterisk-dev] Additional release checksums?

[Matthew Jordan]

On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Paul Belanger <paul.belanger at polybeacon.com
> wrote:

> On 13-12-21 11:04 AM, Ben Langfeld wrote:
>
>> Congrats to all on the 12 release yesterday. There's some excellent work
>> that's gone into that release and we're all very grateful and excited
>> about
>> using it.
>>
>> Unfortunately, Chef only currently supports SHA-256 checksums of
>> downloaded
>> files. This means that in order to properly release new builds of Asterisk
>> to my machines, I need to manually download the release, verify the SHA1,
>> generate a SHA-256, feed this to Chef and converge.
>>
>> There's work underway on Chef to support other checksum types, but it
>> might
>> be helpful regardless for Asterisk to include other checksum types. Would
>> it be a lot of work to add at least SHA-256, if not MD5 as well, to the
>> release process?
>>
>>  The build script for asterisk releases are located in repotools[1], so
> adding support should be a matter of just submitting a patch to the tracker.
>
> [1] http://svnview.digium.com/svn/repotools/
>

It's pretty trivial to update mkrelease and releaser to create a new
checksum file using sha256sum/md5sum.

The question is: if we're going to generate three checksums, is it
worthwhile to put them all into a single checksum file? Or do we want three
separate files?

Going the separate file approach would end up generating 6 files per
release (3 for the release, 3 for the patch), times 3 supported release
branches. Not that it would take up a lot of disk space, but it would be
more stuff to browse through.

Matt

-- 
Matthew Jordan
Digium, Inc. | Engineering Manager
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
Check us out at: http://digium.com & http://asterisk.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/attachments/20131221/13a2acc5/attachment.html>