sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Ladislav Hagara <ladislav.hagara AT unob.cz>
- To: Kajikawa Jeremy <belxjander AT gmail.com>
- Cc: "sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org" <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] xz archives
- Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 17:42:53 +0100
> as long as we validate the decompressed tarball regardless of
> compression then we don't have to worry about compression options.
>
> the only question is what upstream provides and what we decide as a
> policy for preference of one archive type over another really,
>
> right now bz2 is preferential to gz but we can always ask that
> developers choose the best compression choice they have
> there is no need to code anything into sorcery other than some means
> of selecting which source which is on a per-spell basis so far.
>
> Would a support routine in the sorcery library for selecting different
> archive formats for spellwriters be enough?
We need gpg verifying of decompressed tarball / file
http://www.sourcemage.org/issues/331
Mainly to verifying linux kernel sources and patches.
--
Ladislav Hagara
-
[SM-Discuss] xz archives,
Sukneet Basuta, 11/12/2011
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] xz archives,
flux, 11/12/2011
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] xz archives,
Sukneet Basuta, 11/12/2011
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] xz archives,
flux, 11/12/2011
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] xz archives,
Sukneet Basuta, 11/12/2011
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] xz archives,
Ladislav Hagara, 11/13/2011
-
Message not available
- Re: [SM-Discuss] xz archives, Ladislav Hagara, 11/20/2011
-
Message not available
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] xz archives,
Ladislav Hagara, 11/13/2011
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] xz archives,
Sukneet Basuta, 11/12/2011
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] xz archives,
flux, 11/12/2011
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] xz archives,
Sukneet Basuta, 11/12/2011
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] xz archives,
flux, 11/12/2011
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.