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 anyway. > 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: <tarball-name>.md5 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 prefix. > 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, Petr _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice