[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#540215: Introduce dh_checksums

On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 12:21 -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
> > Note regarding the patch:
> >   I have tried to make the patch so it isn't too intrusive (for
> >   instance, dh_checksums is a symlink to dh_md5sums even though it
> >   should be the other way around).
> Symlink direction seems irrelevant.
> I'd probably just make dh_md5sums call dh_checksums, and later add
> a deprecation warning message.
> >   Your comments on the patch are obviously welcome (feel free to hack
> >   it your self if you want)
> > 
> > Any chance to merge it before squeeze Freeze?
> Is debsums ready to handle other checksums types?

Currently, debsums silently ignores sha256 checksums, so it won't break
if we start shipping those checksums.

I intend to submit a patch (see the TODO list[1])

> > +a DEBIAN/md5sums and DEBIAN/sha256sums files, which respectively lists the
> So this doubles the amount of work that's done on build. Is there any
> reason to generate md5sums files, aside from keeping old debsums
> working?

Yes, this is for transition.
We still have to decide how long that transition would be.

> > +	if (basename($0) == 'dh_md5sums') {
> > +		warning("This program should no longer be used. Please read the dh_checksums(1) man page.");
> > +	}
> It's probably too early for this warning, I prefer to give people some
> time before starting to nag.

I agree,

Thank you for your quick review. I'll keep you informed about
lintian/debsums patch.


[1] http://wiki.debian.org/Sha256sumsInPackages

Reply to: