Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Feature request - Specify checksum url instead of value - support protocol handlers in sources fields: #302

Open
ieugen opened this issue Aug 26, 2019 · 2 comments

Comments

@ieugen
Copy link

ieugen commented Aug 26, 2019

Hi,

I'm working with flatpak. I believe it would be great to ALSO be able specify the archive checksum URL instead of the value.

Here is an example of what I have in mind:

            "sources": [
                {
                    "type": "archive",
                    "url": "https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/flywaydb/flyway-commandline/6.0.0/flyway-commandline-6.0.0-linux-x64.tar.gz",
                    "sha1": "https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/flywaydb/flyway-commandline/6.0.0/flyway-commandline-6.0.0-macosx-x64.tar.gz.sha1"
                }

The people who publish the artifact also publish md5 and shaXXX files. I would like to be able to use those links if they are available via a supported protocol like http:// or https:// .

If the schema is one of the above, flatpak-builder should download the file and use it's contents as the value for the checksum.

@TingPing
Copy link
Member

TingPing commented Aug 30, 2019

Well a benefit of the checksum being in the manifest is you actually know when things change. If its a remote resource they can both change.

@ieugen
Copy link
Author

ieugen commented Aug 30, 2019

Sure. I agree with you. I think of it as a feature. To me I trust the upstream.

Does the flatpak save the hash if the archive? If that happens, things are ok.

This feature provides easier maintenance.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants