On 2017-12-06 11:03, Marcos Douglas B. Santos wrote:
Windows just isn't fun. Long live FreeBSD and Linux.
I believe you compile FPC on Linux, right?
So, why do you do the same on Windows? It's pretty easy...
FreeBSD only. And yes, I do compile every FPC release under Windows to
get a native 6
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Graeme Geldenhuys
wrote:
>
> Windows just isn't fun. Long live FreeBSD and Linux.
I believe you compile FPC on Linux, right?
So, why do you do the same on Windows? It's pretty easy...
Best,
Marcos Douglas
___
fpc-pascal
On 2017-12-03 22:46, Tomas Hajny wrote:
Similarly, MS
Windows would probably complain when trying to run an incomplete
installer.
Yes, Windows 10 tells me the official FPC installer contains a virus and
dually deleted the download (without giving me a choice). I downloaded
from SF.net.
The
On Mon, December 4, 2017 15:01, Martok wrote:
>
>>> SourceForge gives checksums, too:
>>
>> true, clicking on the 'i' in the rightmost column shows a popup with md5
>> and sha1 hashes.
> Of course, that doesn't prove nobody has tampered with the files as
> present on SF.net, which is the entire poi
>> SourceForge gives checksums, too:
>
> true, clicking on the 'i' in the rightmost column shows a popup with md5
> and sha1 hashes.
Of course, that doesn't prove nobody has tampered with the files as present on
SF.net, which is the entire point of signed releases.
I take it there's also no Debi
On 12/03/2017 01:48 PM, pasc...@piments.com wrote:
How do I get off this list ?!
the same way you got on it... follow the mailman link attached to every post on
th elist, sign in and turn the list off for you...
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pas
On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 19:46:53 +0100
Benito van der Zander wrote:
> SourceForge gives checksums, too:
true, clicking on the 'i' in the rightmost column shows a popup with md5
and sha1 hashes. did not see it before. thanks! it helps to verify the
download manually, but for automation parsing the web
Hi,
SourceForge gives checksums, too:
Cheers,
Benito
Am 30.11.2017 um 15:47 schrieb Tomas Hajny:
On Thu, November 30, 2017 15:32, kardan wrote:
Wow, both of you managed to avoid my actual question. :)
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 13:00:07 +0100
kardan wrote:
How can I verify those downloads
On Sun, December 3, 2017 18:49, kardan wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 00:33:04 +0100
> "Tomas Hajny" wrote:
>
>> On Fri, December 1, 2017 00:55, kardan wrote:
>> .
>> .
>> > In your case it would be probably enough to
>> > sha256sum $FILES > SHA256SUMS.txt
>> > gpg --sign SHA256SUMS.txt
>>
>> Sorry
On Sun, December 3, 2017 19:56, kardan wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 18:59:40 +0100
> Florian Klämpfl wrote:
>
>> > If your server is able to host files you will be able to generate a
>> > checksum file *anywhere* and put it onto it.
>>
>> Yes, if somebody with shell access to the server finds to ti
On 2017-12-03 18:56, kardan wrote:
Let's hope someone privileged puts attached file into
https://sourceforge.net/projects/freepascal/files/Source/3.0.4
I got the same downloads from ftp.freepascal.org and ran the shasum
utility against those. I can confirm your SHA256 values are correct.
[F
Am 03.12.2017 um 19:54 schrieb code dz:
> 2017-12-03 18:59 UTC+01:00, Florian Klämpfl :
>> Am 03.12.2017 um 18:49 schrieb kardan:
>>> Apart from that, do
>>> you imply, that you intend to burden programmers with work the release
>>> team should have done?
>>
>> Which release team? We are happy that
On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 18:59:40 +0100
Florian Klämpfl wrote:
> > If your server is able to host files you will be able to generate a
> > checksum file *anywhere* and put it onto it.
>
> Yes, if somebody with shell access to the server finds to time to set
> this up.
Let's hope someone privileged
2017-12-03 18:59 UTC+01:00, Florian Klämpfl :
> Am 03.12.2017 um 18:49 schrieb kardan:
>> Apart from that, do
>> you imply, that you intend to burden programmers with work the release
>> team should have done?
>
> Which release team? We are happy that we managed within 3 month to find
> people bein
Am 03.12.2017 um 18:53 schrieb kardan:
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 18:36:09 +0100
> Florian Klämpfl wrote:
>
>> Yes. And I were pointing out that your script does not help much as
>> it is debian/linux only while we create releases for several
>> different OSes.
>
> Does this mean, you are not able to
Am 03.12.2017 um 18:49 schrieb kardan:
> Apart from that, do
> you imply, that you intend to burden programmers with work the release
> team should have done?
Which release team? We are happy that we managed within 3 month to find people
being able, willing
and having the resources to build and u
On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 18:36:09 +0100
Florian Klämpfl wrote:
> Yes. And I were pointing out that your script does not help much as
> it is debian/linux only while we create releases for several
> different OSes.
Does this mean, you are not able to run bash scripts? Or you
cannot find tools to genera
On Sun, 3 Dec 2017 00:33:04 +0100
"Tomas Hajny" wrote:
> On Fri, December 1, 2017 00:55, kardan wrote:
> .
> .
> > In your case it would be probably enough to
> > sha256sum $FILES > SHA256SUMS.txt
> > gpg --sign SHA256SUMS.txt
>
> Sorry, but I'm afraid that you miss the point
In what way?
On 03/12/17 17:36, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
Am 03.12.2017 um 18:20 schrieb kardan:
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 21:02:30 +0100
Florian Klämpfl wrote:
And? FPC is not debian/linux only.
If you are using windows I recommend to use a one of the many checksum
tools to verify downloaded files.> But for that
Am 03.12.2017 um 18:20 schrieb kardan:
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 21:02:30 +0100
> Florian Klämpfl wrote:
>
>> And? FPC is not debian/linux only.
>
> If you are using windows I recommend to use a one of the many checksum
> tools to verify downloaded files.> But for that, releases must publish
> checks
On Fri, 1 Dec 2017 21:02:30 +0100
Florian Klämpfl wrote:
> And? FPC is not debian/linux only.
If you are using windows I recommend to use a one of the many checksum
tools to verify downloaded files. But for that, releases must publish
checksums for those files first. Another option is to downloa
On Fri, December 1, 2017 00:55, kardan wrote:
.
.
> In your case it would be probably enough to
> sha256sum $FILES > SHA256SUMS.txt
> gpg --sign SHA256SUMS.txt
Sorry, but I'm afraid that you miss the point - adding checksums requires
additional effort from release builders and they are not convi
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 21:20:17 +0100 (CET)
mar...@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) wrote:
> In our previous episode, Mattias Gaertner said:
> > The doc-chm.zip has only 7.6mb, while the doc-html.zip has 17.9mb.
> >
> > Reason is that many html files are empty. For example: rtl.chm
> > classes/tthread.h
In our previous episode, Mattias Gaertner said:
> The doc-chm.zip has only 7.6mb, while the doc-html.zip has 17.9mb.
>
> Reason is that many html files are empty. For example: rtl.chm
> classes/tthread.html
>
> Should I report a bug?
Yes, please do. I won't be able to follow up on short notice t
Hi,
The doc-chm.zip has only 7.6mb, while the doc-html.zip has 17.9mb.
Reason is that many html files are empty. For example: rtl.chm
classes/tthread.html
Should I report a bug?
Mattias
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http:
Am 01.12.2017 um 00:55 schrieb kardan:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 23:26:31 +0100
> "Tomas Hajny" wrote:
>
>> Checksums may indeed be created / calculated rather easily. However,
>> that is not enough. The checksums must get to the end user in secured
>> way as well, otherwise it makes no sense. What i
On 2017-11-30 23:55, kardan wrote:
In your case it would be probably enough to
sha256sum $FILES > SHA256SUMS.txt
gpg --sign SHA256SUMS.txt
Yup, that's exactly what I had in mind too. Thanks for sharing.
Regards,
Graeme
___
fpc-pascal maillist -
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 23:26:31 +0100
"Tomas Hajny" wrote:
> Checksums may indeed be created / calculated rather easily. However,
> that is not enough. The checksums must get to the end user in secured
> way as well, otherwise it makes no sense. What is the appropriate
> mechanism for that from your
On 2017-11-30 23:35, Tomas Hajny wrote:
Obviously, there are more secure mechanisms (let's take
Debian packages with their signatures as an example), but these require
more overhead (especially with different release makers for different
Not every release maker needs to create there own checksu
On 2017-11-30 23:35, Tomas Hajny wrote:
Sorry, I know that this is being done, but I don't see how is that more
secure than just downloading the file via HTTPS.
Not all files are downloaded via a secure protocol like HTTPS. That's
true for FreeBSD, Linux and I would guess even for Free Pascal'
On Fri, December 1, 2017 00:18, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> On 2017-11-30 22:26, Tomas Hajny wrote:
>> Checksums may indeed be created / calculated rather easily. However,
>> that
>> is not enough. The checksums must get to the end user in secured way as
>> well, otherwise it makes no sense.
>
>
> A
On 2017-11-30 22:26, Tomas Hajny wrote:
Checksums may indeed be created / calculated rather easily. However, that
is not enough. The checksums must get to the end user in secured way as
well, otherwise it makes no sense.
As the saying goes... Take a page from the playbook of FreeBSD or any
Li
On Thu, November 30, 2017 22:46, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> On 2017-11-30 14:47, Tomas Hajny wrote:
>> Sourceforge provides HTTPS access, that should be safe enough. Apart
>> from
>> that - no, checksums are not being created as part of the release
>> process
>> at the moment.
>>
>> Tomas
>
> That
On 2017-11-30 14:47, Tomas Hajny wrote:
Sourceforge provides HTTPS access, that should be safe enough. Apart from
that - no, checksums are not being created as part of the release process
at the moment.
Tomas
That really should be fixed. As someone that has many many releases is
my years, in
On Thu, November 30, 2017 15:32, kardan wrote:
> Wow, both of you managed to avoid my actual question. :)
>
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 13:00:07 +0100
> kardan wrote:
>
>> How can I verify those downloads with shasum or gpg fingerprints)?
>> (FTP and HTTP seem not to be the safest ways these days.)
Sou
Wow, both of you managed to avoid my actual question. :)
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 13:00:07 +0100
kardan wrote:
> How can I verify those downloads with shasum or gpg fingerprints)?
> (FTP and HTTP seem not to be the safest ways these days.)
Kardan
___
fpc-p
In our previous episode, Pierre Muller said:
> > Thanks for the release in progress!
> > Please also update
> > https://sourceforge.net/projects/freepascal/files/readme.txt/download
>
> I did this a few minutes ago.
>
> But I am not sure all releases available on ftp are also available on
>
Le 30/11/2017 à 13:00, kardan a écrit :
> Thanks for the release in progress!
> Please also update
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/freepascal/files/readme.txt/download
I did this a few minutes ago.
But I am not sure all releases available on ftp are also available on
SourceForge...
Pi
In our previous episode, kardan said:
> How can I verify those downloads with shasum or gpg fingerprints)? (FTP
> and HTTP seem not to be the safest ways these days.)
>
> > Changes that may break backwards compatibility will be documented at:
> > http://wiki.freepascal.org/User_Changes_3_0_4
>
>
Thanks for the release in progress!
How can I verify those downloads with shasum or gpg fingerprints)? (FTP
and HTTP seem not to be the safest ways these days.)
> Changes that may break backwards compatibility will be documented at:
> http://wiki.freepascal.org/User_Changes_3_0_4
"T.B.D."
> For
In our previous episode, Mattias Gaertner said:
> > Finally, the Free Pascal 3.0.4 release is available from our FTP servers.
> >
> > Changes that may break backwards compatibility will be documented at:
> > http://wiki.freepascal.org/User_Changes_3_0_4
>
> That should be
> http://wiki.freepascal
In our previous episode, Mattias Gaertner said:
> > and sourceforge
> >
> > https://sourceforge.net/projects/freepascal/files/
>
> This
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/freepascal/files/Mac%20OS%20X/3.0.4/
> contains a fpc 3.0.5 as well.
>
> Is this on purpose?
Yes, ios comes from a special
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 11:04:31 +0100 (CET)
mar...@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) wrote:
>[...]
> and sourceforge
>
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/freepascal/files/
This
https://sourceforge.net/projects/freepascal/files/Mac%20OS%20X/3.0.4/
contains a fpc 3.0.5 as well.
Is this on purpose?
Mat
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 11:04:31 +0100 (CET)
mar...@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Finally, the Free Pascal 3.0.4 release is available from our FTP servers.
>
> Changes that may break backwards compatibility will be documented at:
> http://wiki.freepascal.org/User_Changes_3_0_4
T
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 11:04:31 +0100 (CET)
mar...@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Finally, the Free Pascal 3.0.4 release is available from our FTP servers.
>
> Changes that may break backwards compatibility will be documented at:
> http://wiki.freepascal.org/User_Changes_3_0_4
>
Hello,
Finally, the Free Pascal 3.0.4 release is available from our FTP servers.
Changes that may break backwards compatibility will be documented at:
http://wiki.freepascal.org/User_Changes_3_0_4
For Downloads, please use the FTP server at
ftp://freepascal.stack.nl/pub/fpc/dist/3.0.4/
and sou
46 matches
Mail list logo
