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 |