From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from dude02.hi.pengutronix.de ([2001:67c:670:100:1d::28] helo=dude02.lab.pengutronix.de) by metis.ext.pengutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jMS1l-0005cd-0B for ptxdist@pengutronix.de; Thu, 09 Apr 2020 09:55:09 +0200 Received: from mol by dude02.lab.pengutronix.de with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jMS1k-0001A1-NU for ptxdist@pengutronix.de; Thu, 09 Apr 2020 09:55:08 +0200 Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 09:55:08 +0200 From: Michael Olbrich Message-ID: <20200409075508.GA2081@pengutronix.de> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [ptxdist] Do ipkg-push with SHA256 checksums List-Id: PTXdist Development Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: ptxdist@pengutronix.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ptxdist-bounces@pengutronix.de Sender: "ptxdist" To: ptxdist@pengutronix.de Hi, On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 10:33:31AM +0000, Simon Falsig wrote: > I'm trying to setup ipkg-push to repository, generating a signed Packages > list with SHA256 checksums (using opkg, and the --checksum SHA256 > parameter). From what I can see though, the ipkg-push is done by > scripts/ipkg-push, which doesn't have a way of setting the checksum type, > and just calls ${TYPE}-make-index without any parameters. I can easily > hack something together to make this work for me (by just modifying the > ipkg-push script), but is there a more correct way? > > Judging from the ipkg-push file, it's made to support not just opkg, but > also ipkg, which I don't think supports the SHA256 checksum. So just > blindly adding the checksum parameter to the commandline would not > maintain the generic support. On the other hand, I haven't found any > other users of the script than ones where it's called with opkg as the > type. ipkg-push is pretty much unmaintained on my side. I don't use it at all. This is the only reason why it still supports ipkg. We removed the ipkg support pretty much everywhere else a long time ago. I don't know much about this but it seem to me, that always having SHA256 checksums wont hurt, right? With all that, I think: > Suggestions: > - Make ipkg-push just support opkg, and allow the checksumtype to be > specified as a parameter to the script (image_ipkg.make already > generates the local using opkg-make-index only) This is the way to go. Just remove the 'type' option. And, unless there is a good reason against it, just add the '--checksum SHA256' arguments unconditionally. Probably for the other user of opkg-make-index as well. Michael > - Maintain ipkg/opkg support by making some more elaborate parameters > (for instance an "make-index-extra" that is then just passed from > ipkg-push to ${TYPE}-make-index > - Pull index generation out of ipkg-push, and let it be done by > image_ipkg.make instead (which seems to be the only other place that is > currently calling any of the -make-index functions) > - Something entirely different -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ ptxdist mailing list ptxdist@pengutronix.de