Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-users - Re: [SM-Users] first experiences and problems

sm-users AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Sourcemage Users List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Thomas Orgis <thomas-forum AT orgis.org>
  • To: sm-users AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Users] first experiences and problems
  • Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:47:56 +0100

Hi Seth!

I agree that a bad package at a download location should not pass unnoted.
Maybe it should fail at the first time and then ask the user at the next cast
attempt to choose a different location... That way one is annoyed enough to
fix the spell but as a user, one can still install with the broken spell. Or
it should try a different mirror by itself but still report (at the end of
the whole cast) that there is a problem with the spell that should be
reported but the spell installed successfully. What I want to minimize, is
the count of situations where you issue a big cast, go to sleep... and see
next morning that the cast stopped because of an error just some minutes
after you left the machine.

For that, the most useful thing may be the option to do all downloading _and_
validation first (with possibility for user to take influence; p.ex. pause
the cast and get the file separately or choose a different location to try)
and then do the compilation uninterrrupted and without the possible problem
source of network tranfsers.

I'll try to look at the code when this continues to urge me...

PS: What I don't really understand is you argument about hashes vs. gpg
signatures (and why this relates to what I said, anyway). Wouldn't an
out-of-sync mirror pass the hash check, too if the source and hash are kept
together? Of course I agree that a hash is inferior in that it doesn't preven
malicious modification of the source (and simple updating of the hash that is
kept together with the soruce).


Thomas.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page