SHA256 checksums

[Kris Kennaway]

On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 06:04:37PM +0100, Erwin Lansing wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 06:59:51PM +0200, Vasil Dimov wrote:
> > Should maintainers explicitly submit PRs with the SHA256 checksums...
> > seems quite tedious.
> 
> Quite so.
> > 
> > Is there going to be some automatic and massive SHA256 checksum
> > gather and commit stuff?
> 
> This is what happened when SIZE was added to distinfo. Most maintainers
> and committers added the SIZE to their ports, but after some time
> someone stepped up and did an automated commit to add SIZE to all those
> ports that did not yet have it added.
> > 
> > Is "do nothing" the appropriate thing to do in this case (from
> > maintainer's point of view)?
> > 
> If you want, you can submit one big PR with the diffs for all your ports
> at once, but I'm hoping that again someone will step up and do an
> automated commit in some way or another.

If someone can do this in a way that is 

               *** Careful ***

i.e. they:

* verify that they are not committing random other changes together
with the sha checksum

* deal with the fact that 'make checksum' on their machine may not add
checksums for all of the files listed in distinfo (and in such a case
will actually remove them, breaking the port for others)

then it would be better to do them in batches instead of getting
committers to deal with hundreds of individual PRs.

Kris

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20051109/51d41fd6/attachment.bin