Bug#572571: packages SHOULD ship checksums (a-la dh_md5sums, but better)
- To: email@example.com, Stefano Zacchiroli <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Bug#572571: packages SHOULD ship checksums (a-la dh_md5sums, but better)
- From: Russ Allbery <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:41:42 -0800
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: Russ Allbery <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <20100305165133.GA4251@yellowpig> (Bill Allombert's message of "Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:51:33 +0100")
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20100303104725.GA18778@celtic.nixsys.be> <email@example.com> <4B8EB3B6.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20100303211921.GA11527@usha.takhisis.invalid> <email@example.com> <20100304081121.GA19497@usha.takhisis.invalid> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20100304220045.GA13767@usha.takhisis.invalid> <20100305165133.GA4251@yellowpig>
Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 11:00:45PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> Currently, packages ships file checksums which are computed at package
>> build time by the means of dh_md5sums (usually), and stored under
>> /var/lib/dpkg/info/*md5sums. Several people find those checksums
>> useful, mostly for file corruption detection a-la CRC.
>> Empirical tests show that the archive coverage is pretty good, most
>> packages seem to ship those checksums.
>> Hence, there is a desire to turn a similar feature into, for start, a
>> SHOULD requirement, meant to become a MUST later on.
> If we are moving that way, maybe it would make sense for the checksums
> to be generated by dpkg-buildpackage.
One does have to be able to exclude some things on a per-package basis
since there are some weird cases in the archives. (Files in
/var/lib/[ai]spell are the one case that Lintian knows about at present.)
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>