Source Mage code commit list

[Arwed von Merkatz <v.merkatz AT gmx.net>]

On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 06:56:01PM +0200, Flavien Bridault wrote:
> Le lundi 01 mai 2006 à 15:57 +0200, Ladislav Hagara a écrit :
> > > Change 78742 by flavien_bridault@flavien-Gargamel on 2006/05/01 11:08:02
> > > Corrected bug #11705
> > > Affected files ...
> > > ==== //sgl/grimoires/devel/disk/graveman/DETAILS#12 (xtext) ====
> > > VERSION=0.3.12-4
> > > SOURCE=$SPELL-$VERSION.tar.bz2
> > > SOURCE_URL[0]=http://graveman.tuxfamily.org/sources/$SOURCE
> > > - 
> > > SOURCE_HASH=sha512:9ad23e1c14ba461f105387f3273aa649f8b743bb748a374cbe260e645fcdbbe708b825af0d96e2206114d3d5f9b5c8950a8d140e859adb3f7118f33e3d83b056
> > > + SOURCE_GPG="gurus.gpg:${SOURCE}.sig:WORKS_FOR_ME"
> > > ==== //sgl/grimoires/devel/disk/graveman/HISTORY#16 (text) ====
> > > +2006-05-01 Flavien Bridault <vlaaad AT sourcemage.org>
> > > + * DEPENDS: added xml-parser-expat (bug #11705)
> > > + * DETAILS: sha512->GPG
> > 
> > Any reason to change SOURCE_HASH to SOURCE_GPG?
> > Is it necessary to mention it in HISTORY?
> > 
> > Sorry for nitpicking, just testing sm-commit list. :-)
> > 
> No particular reason... :-)
> As far as I understood, GPG(WORKS_FOR_ME) is a similar certification as
> sha512. I've begun to use GPG since few days (yes I'm a bit late...) and
> I plan to use it all over my three sections. Therefore, as soon as I
> modify a spell, I change it to use GPG.
> I wrote my upgrade_spell script to use GPG, so this is even more easy.
> 
> I mention it in HISTORY because as soon as you modify DETAILS, you have
> to tell it, iirc.
> 
> Any objection ?

We usually don't mention switches from SOURCE_HASH to guru gpg signature
in HISTORY as they are equivalent. And since mentioning them would make
some HISTORY files of spells updated by several people twice as large.

-- 
Arwed v. Merkatz                              Source Mage GNU/Linux developer
                                                    http://www.sourcemage.org