On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 11:38:55PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
It'd actually be good to be able to break Files in future, so that we're
forced to verify something other than md5sum. Otherwise there will
be code that doesn't check it properly, and that will end up being a
security problem.
Hmm, that might indeed be a good idea (the point to remove the Files
field would be v3 then).
Having it be:
Contents: sha256
28ee6a10eb280ede4b19c1b975aff5533016a26de67ba9212d51ffaea020ce34 355 foo
Files:
4bf7ff17bd9ddf3846d9065b3c594fb4 355 foo
or similar would be nice and non-redundant, and make it possible to drop
I can see the "nice". But once I want to include more than one checksum
it quickly gets redundant.
So maybe keep the Checksums field and introduce a Contents field that
contains no checksums, but only the size and the name?
Checksums:
md5 4bf7ff17bd9ddf3846d9065b3c594fb4 foo
sha256 28ee6a10eb280ede4b19c1b975aff5533016a26de67ba9212d51ffaea020ce34 foo
Contents:
355 foo
Files:
4bf7ff17bd9ddf3846d9065b3c594fb4 355 foo
That makes the parsing more robust and eliminates the need to specifiy
the size of a file more than once. If we want we could even declare size
also to be a checksum and include only the filenames in the
Contents field.
Gruesse,