Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
Subject: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 0/3] glep-0074: clarifications about size and checksum fields
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 14:04:04
Message-Id: 20220923140355.1307514-1-mgorny@gentoo.org
1 Hi,
2
3 Here's next part of GLEP 74 updates, this time I think it qualifiers
4 as 100% editorial. Ulrich Müller noticed that we don't specify how
5 to express sizes and checksums. I've partially solved the latter while
6 adding the hash algorithm table and these patches should clarify
7 the matters even further.
8
9 Notably, they:
10
11 1) clarify that DIST entries are relevant to package managers only
12
13 2) specify that size is an unsigned decimal, and checksums consist
14 of name-value pairs
15
16 3) clarify that 'Hex' encoding of hashes means lowercase hex without
17 any prefix or suffix
18
19 Perhaps the most controversial part is requiring lowercase -- but
20 (drumroll...) Portage reports hash mismatch if you use uppercase.
21
22
23 Michał Górny (3):
24 glep-0074: Clarify that DIST entries are specific to PMs
25 glep-0074: Specify the format of size and checksum fields
26 glep-0074: Clarify the hex encoding of hash values
27
28 glep-0074.rst | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
29 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
30
31 --
32 2.37.3

Replies