opinion needed on feature/download

Petr Mladek pmladek at suse.cz
Mon Nov 26 02:46:38 PST 2012

Mat M píše v Pá 23. 11. 2012 v 19:06 +0100:
> Alternative: if someone insists on separating md5 from filename to be able  
> to use default tars,

It was me who come up with the idea or removing md5sum from the file
name. Well, it was after Matus came up with the idea of introducing .md5
files :-)

I do not have any strong opinion on it. I just think that the md5 sum in
the tarball name is quite non-standard solution. I think that the only
"advantage" is that the md5sum is hardcoded in git => you are 100% sure
that you use the right tarball from the LO site. But most people are
using "make fetch", so they are downloading the preferred tarball

>  I propose to have a fetch folder with the list of md5  
> files like : foobar-1.1.4.tar.gz.md5 containing  
> 48d647fbd8ef8889e5a7f422c1bfda94

I am not sure what you mean with fetch folder. IMHO, we do not need any
extra list anywhere. The md5 file name would be:


The content would be the standard content produced by md5sum utility:

   <sum>  <tarball-name>

, so that you could simply call:

   md5sum -c <tarball-name>.md5

It would be located on the server like the tarball => the same URL

> I prefer having md5 under git, because if md5 is corrupt by the download,  
> you cannot check your tar download.

IMHO, you need not have md5 in git to detect the download corruption. If
a file is corrupted, the md5 sum from the .md5 file does not match. Or
did I miss something?

As I said, I do not have any strong opinion. If we remove md5sum from
the filename, it will cause extra work for distro package maintainers.
On the other hand, it might be slightly easier in the long term.

Best Regards,

More information about the LibreOffice mailing list