checksum verification in nALFS
haski at sezampro.yu
Fri Oct 11 14:44:02 PDT 2002
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 11:11:12PM +0200, Vassili Dzuba wrote:
> If we make the check out of <unpack>, we need to specify the archive,
> so there is a little more text to write.
> More seriously, if <unpack> contains a <reference>, we might not have
> the archive available before the <unpack>.
Right, I forgot about <reference>. It's still new to me. :)
> We could maybe keep <checksum> within unpack if the user want to use
> it there, and add an element <verify> that can occur in <alfs> and
> <stage>, like :
> <checksum type="md5">&bash-md5;</checksum>
Hm, two elements for doing the same thing, can't say that I like that. :)
But what do you think about <unpack> without <destination> ?
If there is no <destination>, that means just "check the archive"
(or do something else with it, in the future).
If there is <checksum> in it, check the sum. There could be even
something else which would tell the program to check if the archive is
complete, not only partially downloaded and stuff like that.
Now the name "unpack" wouldn't be that great anymore. So what about:
(lot of this would be optional, so it wouldn't be more complicated)
Maybe it wouldn't be that clear as <unpack> is, when it comes to
unpacking the archive, but I think it's still pretty clear, thanks to
<destination> (archive, destination... should be clear :).
I know this is another big, profile_breaker change (something for syntax
4.0, but hey, we already got used to that ;), but I actually like this
solution. At least these 5 minutes. :) I might change my mind in another 5.
And BTW, this would be more close to something we've been mentioning on
the list before. Less script-like, and more XML-like. Or not. :)
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe alfs-discuss' in the subject header of the message
More information about the alfs-discuss