Message-ID: <CA+icZUUiOqP5=1i6QtorSbjsyaQRe1thwcp36qfTdDUnKKqmJA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Jul 2020 09:29:00 +0200
From:   Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>
To:     Hyunchul Lee <hyc.lee@...il.com>
Cc:     Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
        Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@...e.com>,
        Nicolas Boos <nicolas.boos@...adoo.fr>
Subject: Re: exfatprogs-1.0.3 version released

On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 6:57 AM Hyunchul Lee <hyc.lee@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Sedat,
>
> For v1.0.3 and later releases, we can provide tar.xz tarballs, hashes
> and detached signatures.
> But is there a reason why hashes are required despite the signature?
>
> We will let you know when it's done.
>

Hi Hyunchul,

thanks for your feedback and providing tar.xz tarballs.

BTW, Debian uses tar.xz tarballs as default for their packages.

Hashes are for me a way to check if my download was complete and correct.
That is the normal way.
To sign them, too.

Some days ago I downloaded Grml ISO-image.
For ISO-images I see you can verify your download via hashes (sha1,
md5 or better sha256 or sha512).
I had once a Red Hat ISO-Image which did not install correctly.
Checking the ISO-Image via offered hashes revealed it was not
complete/correct downloaded.
That happened once in my life.

I see another topic:
In the Debian world we have now exfat-utils (exfat-fuse based) and no
exfatprogs Debian package.
Some days ago Linux v5.7 entered Debian/testing AMD64 - my preferred distro.
It's still on my todo-list but I have not tested the kernel-side of
exfat-fs implementation.

As said I contacted the Debian maintainer via PM and he is thinking of
taking the maintenance of exfatprogs.
But he did not do a last decision.

You happen to know what other Linux distributions do in this topic?

Thanks.

Regards,
- Sedat -

[0] https://grml.org/download/
[1] https://packages.debian.org/exfat-utils
[2] https://packages.debian.org/exfat-fuse

> Thanks.
>
> Regards,
> Hyunchul
>
> 2020년 6월 30일 (화) 오후 7:16, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>님이 작성:
> >
> > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:17 AM Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi folk,
> > >
> > > We have released exfatprogs-1.0.3 version.
> > > Any feedback is welcome!:)
> > >
> > > CHANGES :
> > >  * Rename label.exfat to tune.exfat.
> > >  * tune.exfat: change argument style(-l option for print level,
> > >    -L option for setting label)
> > >  * mkfs.exfat: harmonize set volume label option with tune.exfat.
> > >
> > > NEW FEATURES :
> > >  * Add man page.
> > >
> > > BUG FIXES :
> > >  * Fix the reported build warnings/errors.
> > >  * Add memset to clean garbage in allocation.
> > >  * Fix wrong volume label array size.
> > >  * Open a device using O_EXCL to avoid formatting it while it is mounted.
> > >  * Fix incomplete "make dist" generated tarball.
> > >
> > > The git tree is at:
> > >       https://github.com/exfatprogs/exfatprogs
> > >
> > > The tarballs can be found at:
> > >       https://github.com/exfatprogs/exfatprogs/releases/download/1.0.3/exfatprogs-1.0.3.tar.gz
> > >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > thanks for the upgrade.
> >
> > Today, I contacted the Debian maintainer on how he wants to
> > distinguish between exfat-utils vs. exfatprogs as Linux v5.7 entered
> > Debian/unstable.
> >
> > When I looked at the release/tags page on github:
> >
> > Can you please offer tar.xz tarballs, please?
> > Hashes? Like sha256sum
> > Signing keys? (Signed tarballs?)
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Regards,
> > - Sedat -

Powered by blists - more mailing lists