Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Sheng Yu <syu.os@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/3] glep-0074: clarifications about size and checksum fields
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 17:58:14
Message-Id: QkvYoVgt73eMzHYSD8Eap3VUzDR0vaEXeNdwJ5v_y31AYGMVAqXVKE_800nr7LbFEpXXGXieEmTf1EyGqx7BblGajbkvioiJ7HbojyRZlu8=@protonmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/3] glep-0074: clarifications about size and checksum fields by "Michał Górny"
1 Hi,
2
3 The hash does not need to be lowercase. It can be a quick fix in portage to accept any case.
4
5 Thanks,
6 Sheng Yu
7
8
9 ------- Original Message -------
10 On Friday, September 23rd, 2022 at 10:03, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
11
12
13 >
14 >
15 > Hi,
16 >
17 > Here's next part of GLEP 74 updates, this time I think it qualifiers
18 > as 100% editorial. Ulrich Müller noticed that we don't specify how
19 > to express sizes and checksums. I've partially solved the latter while
20 > adding the hash algorithm table and these patches should clarify
21 > the matters even further.
22 >
23 > Notably, they:
24 >
25 > 1) clarify that DIST entries are relevant to package managers only
26 >
27 > 2) specify that size is an unsigned decimal, and checksums consist
28 > of name-value pairs
29 >
30 > 3) clarify that 'Hex' encoding of hashes means lowercase hex without
31 > any prefix or suffix
32 >
33 > Perhaps the most controversial part is requiring lowercase -- but
34 > (drumroll...) Portage reports hash mismatch if you use uppercase.
35 >
36 >
37 > Michał Górny (3):
38 > glep-0074: Clarify that DIST entries are specific to PMs
39 > glep-0074: Specify the format of size and checksum fields
40 > glep-0074: Clarify the hex encoding of hash values
41 >
42 > glep-0074.rst | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
43 > 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
44 >
45 > --
46 > 2.37.3

Replies