You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2019/04/01 18:06:02 UTC

tarball.sha256 file formatting (Was Re: [VOTE] apr-1.6.4 release?)

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:34 PM Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de> wrote:

> Am 07.09.2018 um 18:19 schrieb William A Rowe Jr:
> > Please cast your votes on the following release candidate
> > found at http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
> >
> > Release apr-1.6.4
> >    [  ] +/-1
>
> One niggle: the sha files are not very tool friendly. I'm using
> sha1sum/sha256sum/sha512sum which can check the checksum files but do
> not understand the format used for 1.6.4. The previous version 1.6.3
> used a checksum file format, the tools did understand. That format would be
>
> CHECKSUM *FILENAME
>
> and the "*" (indicating binary) is only there if the file is not a text
> file, eg. for our tarballs and zip files.


Hi Rainer,

I didn't find a follow-up on this, but I trust our tools/release.sh now
gives you
an appropriate .sha256 format file your tools can parse, with the -r
coreutils
flag passed to openssl?

Re: tarball.sha256 file formatting (Was Re: [VOTE] apr-1.6.4 release?)

Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
Hi Bill,

Am 01.04.2019 um 20:06 schrieb William A Rowe Jr:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:34 PM Rainer Jung <rainer.jung@kippdata.de 
> <ma...@kippdata.de>> wrote:
> 
>     Am 07.09.2018 um 18:19 schrieb William A Rowe Jr:
>      > Please cast your votes on the following release candidate
>      > found at http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
>      >
>      > Release apr-1.6.4
>      >    [  ] +/-1
> 
>     One niggle: the sha files are not very tool friendly. I'm using
>     sha1sum/sha256sum/sha512sum which can check the checksum files but do
>     not understand the format used for 1.6.4. The previous version 1.6.3
>     used a checksum file format, the tools did understand. That format
>     would be
> 
>     CHECKSUM *FILENAME
> 
>     and the "*" (indicating binary) is only there if the file is not a text
>     file, eg. for our tarballs and zip files.
> 
> 
> Hi Rainer,
> 
> I didn't find a follow-up on this, but I trust our tools/release.sh now 
> gives you
> an appropriate .sha256 format file your tools can parse, with the -r 
> coreutils
> flag passed to openssl?

The sha256 file currently available for 1.7.0 works well for me (using 
sha256sum -c).

Thanks and Regards,

Rainer