| 1 |
On Sun, 15 Nov 2020 11:03:29 +1300 |
| 2 |
Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 19:38:35 -0500 |
| 5 |
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > I just host stuff like that on my dev webspace, or better yet on |
| 8 |
> > github or something else that will auto-tarball stuff. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Oh, yeah, and don't rely on github auto-tarball stuff. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> History has demonstrated github sometimes "forgets" their cached copies |
| 13 |
> of those tarballs, and then later when requested, it will regenerate |
| 14 |
> them fresh ... but with different SHAsums. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> If you're gonna use github for tarballs, roll that tarball yourself, |
| 17 |
> and attach it to a "release", manually and explicitly, and then use the |
| 18 |
> URL to the release asset. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Only then can you be sure: |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> a) Of what the tarball actually contains |
| 23 |
> b) Of what the tarballs SHAsum will be |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I'm not claiming this has never actually happened but I use these |
| 26 |
GitHub tarballs *a lot* and I don't recall ever seeing it. Does anyone |
| 27 |
know for sure that it's happened in, say, the last 3 years? It's a lot |
| 28 |
of extra work for a problem that may no longer exist or is so rare that |
| 29 |
it's just not worth the effort. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
James Le Cuirot (chewi) |
| 33 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives