httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guenter Knauf <fua...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [vote] release httpd-2.2.14?
Date Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:49:51 GMT
Graham Leggett schrieb:
> Guenter Knauf wrote:
> 
>>> Can you point out where this is documented?
>> I'll try to dig that up.
> 
> If you can, please.
I think what I meant were the pointers on the download side:
http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi
see down last sentence - however its not explained how to check
automatically; but I volunteer to add a section for this.

> It would be better to use a common format if one does exist.
what I propose *is* the common format, and - as Rainer also agreed - the
only one which can be machine-verified.

>>> With the downside that what you propose only works on Linux.
>> huh? nope - these tools are available on Win32 too; and where is a
>> downside at all?
> 
> Ok, now what you propose only works on Linux and Windows. *BSD? MacOSX?
> Others?
http://www.freebsdsoftware.org/sysutils/coreutils.html
http://coreutils.darwinports.com/

Also its no reason to force *all* users to verify manually only because
some OS might lack of any of the checksum tools.

> Seriously, it can't be that hard to compare one checksum to another surely?
if its the first or last byte then not - if its byte 29 which is the
only different then it I doubt that you see that with a quick look, and
without copy&paste both checksums into a text file each in separate
lines ...

Anyway, since its not hard to modify the roll.sh to produce a
machine-readable format I think we should use it - it makes no
difference for those who love to verify by eye :)

Gün.



Mime
View raw message