1 |
Michał Górny posted on Sat, 21 Oct 2017 01:39:55 +0200 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> W dniu pią, 20.10.2017 o godzinie 18∶42 -0400, użytkownik Anton Molyboha |
4 |
> napisał: |
5 |
|
6 |
>> Would it make sense then to support several hashes but let the user |
7 |
>> optionally turn off the verification of some of them, depending on the |
8 |
>> user's security vs performance requirements? |
9 |
>> |
10 |
> I won't block anyone from implementing such an option but I won't spend |
11 |
> my time on it either. However, if you believe verifying two checksums |
12 |
> could be a problem, then I have serious doubts if you hardware is |
13 |
> capable of building anything. |
14 |
|
15 |
When does this verification happen? |
16 |
|
17 |
If it's during --sync or --pretend/ask, as I believe it is based on when |
18 |
I get errors if I edit and forget to manifest/digest, then arguably time |
19 |
matters rather more than it does if it's only after the user has OKed the |
20 |
merge and it's doing the build. |
21 |
|
22 |
Because the time before the PM tells me what it's going to do and asks my |
23 |
OK before doing it is time I'm generally actually waiting for it (tho I'm |
24 |
normally doing something else while waiting, but I /am/ waiting) to |
25 |
decide whether I want to go ahead, or perhaps I need to change something |
26 |
first, while the actual build time after I've OKed it, doesn't matter so |
27 |
much, because I'm not actually waiting on it, I'm doing other things, |
28 |
which can actually include turning in for the night or going to work, |
29 |
with the intent being that it'll be done when I get back to it. |
30 |
|
31 |
So the hash verification time really does matter, even if it's minutes |
32 |
compared to hours of actual build time, because that's time I'm actively |
33 |
waiting for it, vs. letting it do its thing in the background, with much |
34 |
less concern about how long (within reason) it might take. |
35 |
|
36 |
-- |
37 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
38 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
39 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |