You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to reviews@aurora.apache.org by Stephan Erb <se...@apache.org> on 2017/10/08 16:20:18 UTC
Review Request 62831: Switch packaging release checksum to sha512
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/62831/
-----------------------------------------------------------
Review request for Aurora and Bill Farner.
Repository: aurora-packaging
Description
-------
For our releases we will now be using .sha512 files rather than .sha files
containing sha1 checksums. This change is triggered by a recent update of
the Apache Release Distribution Policy.
Please see this mail for details:
```
Hi PMC,
The Release Distribution Policy[1] changed regarding .sha files.
See under "Cryptographic Signatures and Checksums Requirements" [2].
Old policy :
-- use extension .sha for any SHA checksum (SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-512)
New policy :
-- use .sha1 for a SHA-1 checksum
-- use .sha256 for a SHA-256 checksum
-- use .sha512 for a SHA-512 checksum
-- [*] .sha should contain a SHA-1
Why this change ?
-- Verifying a checksum under the old policy is/was not handy.
You have to inspect the .sha to find out which algorithm
should be used ; or try them all (SHA-1, SHA256, etc).
The new scheme avoids this ambiguity.
-- The last point[*] was only added for clarity. Most of the
old, stale .sha's contain a SHA-1. The relatively new .sha's
contain a SHA-512. The expectation is that the last catagory will
disappear, when active projects adapt to the 'new' convention.
Impact :
-- Should be none ; many projects already use the 'new' convention.
-- Please ask your release managers to use .sha1, .sha256, .sha512
instead of the .sha extension.
-- Please fix your build-tools if you have any.
Piggyback :
-- The policy requires a .md5 for every package ;
providing a .sha512 is recommended.
Since MD5 is essentially broken, it is to be expected that
in the future a .sha512 will be required.
Perhaps it is wize to start providing .sha512's
with your releases if you do not already do so.
-- Visit http://mirror-vm.apache.org/checker/
to check the health of your /dist/-area ;
my stuff ; any feedback is most welcome.
Thanks ; regards,
Henk Penning
[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution
[2] http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution#sigs-and-sums
```
Diffs
-----
build-support/release/release-candidate c5aad693b00ad8fd84c4121e51bd6adba90f4cec
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/62831/diff/1/
Testing
-------
Thanks,
Stephan Erb
Re: Review Request 62831: Switch packaging release checksum to sha512
Posted by Bill Farner <wf...@apache.org>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/62831/#review187364
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Bill Farner
On Oct. 8, 2017, 9:20 a.m., Stephan Erb wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/62831/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Oct. 8, 2017, 9:20 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for Aurora and Bill Farner.
>
>
> Repository: aurora-packaging
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> For our releases we will now be using .sha512 files rather than .sha files
> containing sha1 checksums. This change is triggered by a recent update of
> the Apache Release Distribution Policy.
>
> Please see this mail for details:
>
> ```
> Hi PMC,
>
> The Release Distribution Policy[1] changed regarding .sha files.
> See under "Cryptographic Signatures and Checksums Requirements" [2].
>
> Old policy :
>
> -- use extension .sha for any SHA checksum (SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-512)
>
> New policy :
>
> -- use .sha1 for a SHA-1 checksum
> -- use .sha256 for a SHA-256 checksum
> -- use .sha512 for a SHA-512 checksum
> -- [*] .sha should contain a SHA-1
>
> Why this change ?
>
> -- Verifying a checksum under the old policy is/was not handy.
> You have to inspect the .sha to find out which algorithm
> should be used ; or try them all (SHA-1, SHA256, etc).
> The new scheme avoids this ambiguity.
> -- The last point[*] was only added for clarity. Most of the
> old, stale .sha's contain a SHA-1. The relatively new .sha's
> contain a SHA-512. The expectation is that the last catagory will
> disappear, when active projects adapt to the 'new' convention.
>
> Impact :
>
> -- Should be none ; many projects already use the 'new' convention.
> -- Please ask your release managers to use .sha1, .sha256, .sha512
> instead of the .sha extension.
> -- Please fix your build-tools if you have any.
>
> Piggyback :
>
> -- The policy requires a .md5 for every package ;
> providing a .sha512 is recommended.
> Since MD5 is essentially broken, it is to be expected that
> in the future a .sha512 will be required.
> Perhaps it is wize to start providing .sha512's
> with your releases if you do not already do so.
>
> -- Visit http://mirror-vm.apache.org/checker/
> to check the health of your /dist/-area ;
> my stuff ; any feedback is most welcome.
>
> Thanks ; regards,
>
> Henk Penning
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution
> [2] http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution#sigs-and-sums
> ```
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> build-support/release/release-candidate c5aad693b00ad8fd84c4121e51bd6adba90f4cec
>
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/62831/diff/1/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stephan Erb
>
>