On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 12:21 -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
> > Note regarding the patch:
> > I have tried to make the patch so it isn't too intrusive (for
> > instance, dh_checksums is a symlink to dh_md5sums even though it
> > should be the other way around).
>
> Symlink direction seems irrelevant.
>
> I'd probably just make dh_md5sums call dh_checksums, and later add
> a deprecation warning message.
>
> > Your comments on the patch are obviously welcome (feel free to hack
> > it your self if you want)
> >
> > Any chance to merge it before squeeze Freeze?
>
> Is debsums ready to handle other checksums types?
Currently, debsums silently ignores sha256 checksums, so it won't break
if we start shipping those checksums.
I intend to submit a patch (see the TODO list[1])
> > +a DEBIAN/md5sums and DEBIAN/sha256sums files, which respectively lists the
>
> So this doubles the amount of work that's done on build. Is there any
> reason to generate md5sums files, aside from keeping old debsums
> working?
Yes, this is for transition.
We still have to decide how long that transition would be.
> > + if (basename($0) == 'dh_md5sums') {
> > + warning("This program should no longer be used. Please read the
> > dh_checksums(1) man page.");
> > + }
>
> It's probably too early for this warning, I prefer to give people some
> time before starting to nag.
I agree,
Thank you for your quick review. I'll keep you informed about
lintian/debsums patch.
Franklin
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/Sha256sumsInPackages
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/1268070281.21347.10033.ca...@solid.paris.klabs.be
