integrit-devel

[Integrit-devel] cosmetic fixes

[Yuri D'E. <wa...@yu...>]

Before the release, I noted there are several cases of warning/error  
messages with extra newlines.
I left just the two cases in option.c which are aesthetically  
pleasing. Let me know if this sounds ok or these newlines were  
actually intended.

Re: [Integrit-devel] cosmetic fixes

[Yuri D'E. <wa...@yu...>]

On Oct 3, 2005, at 19:14, Ed L. Cashin wrote:

> On 9/25/05, Yuri D'Elia <wa...@yu...> wrote:
>
>> Before the release, I noted there are several cases of warning/error
>> messages with extra newlines.
>> I left just the two cases in option.c which are aesthetically
>> pleasing. Let me know if this sounds ok or these newlines were
>> actually intended.
>
> Yuri, please don't let me hold you up when I'm unresponsive.
> If the changes are tested, then feel free to go ahead with a
> release.
>
> Then let me know so that I can make a freshmeat announcement.

Yup, I figured that out ;). I commited the changes two days ago when  
I had time.
You can release. Apart from the version number that needs to be  
bumped, the docs
need to be regenerated too.

Re: [Integrit-devel] cosmetic fixes

[Ed L. C. <ec...@no...>]

On 10/3/05, Yuri D'Elia <wa...@yu...> wrote:
...
> Yup, I figured that out ;). I commited the changes two days ago when
> I had time.
> You can release. Apart from the version number that needs to be
> bumped, the docs
> need to be regenerated too.

OK.  So all your changes are in CVS now?

It will be at least a week before I'll be able to do the
release.  If you'd like to do it before then feel free.

--
  Ed L. Cashin <ec...@no...>

Re: [Integrit-devel] cosmetic fixes

[Ed L. C. <ec...@no...>]

On 9/25/05, Yuri D'Elia <wa...@yu...> wrote:
> Before the release, I noted there are several cases of warning/error
> messages with extra newlines.
> I left just the two cases in option.c which are aesthetically
> pleasing. Let me know if this sounds ok or these newlines were
> actually intended.

Yuri, please don't let me hold you up when I'm unresponsive.
If the changes are tested, then feel free to go ahead with a
release.

Then let me know so that I can make a freshmeat announcement.

--
  Ed L. Cashin <ec...@no...>

Re: [Integrit-devel] cosmetic fixes

[Yuri D'E. <wa...@yu...>]

On Oct 4, 2005, at 18:18, Ed L. Cashin wrote:

>> It seems that it's doing its job: the generated file, except for
>> comments, is the same.
>
> In that case, yes, it seems like it's time to get rid of
> config.h.in.  :)

I've got time only today to merge the changes.
Now cvs holds all the changes, test works fine:

integrit: ---- integrit, version 4.0 -----------------
integrit:                      output : human-readable
integrit:                   conf file : test-9073/test.conf
integrit:                    known db : test-9073/known.cdb
integrit:                  current db : test-9073/curr.cdb
integrit:                        root : test-9073
integrit:                    do check : no
integrit:                   do update : yes
integrit: current-state db RMD160 --------------
integrit: ff01774c61cd1ea02dd18b79c09c73554ef54e18  test-9073/curr.cdb

yet the documentation needs to be updated before the release.
README should probably include the reasons of RMD160 choice.
faq and integrit infos mention MD5 and SHA1. I'd say to remove
entirely the hash name in the docs, use the generic term "checksum"
and include a small section to introduce the hash algorithm used.
Also mention somewhere that 4.0 breaks the db (not really,
but all checksums will differ). I don't have time to do it now,
so I think the release will wait until the end of the week.

Re: [Integrit-devel] cosmetic fixes

[Ed L. C. <ec...@no...>]

On 10/6/05, Yuri D'Elia <wa...@yu...> wrote:

...
> I've got time only today to merge the changes.
> Now cvs holds all the changes, test works fine:
>
> integrit: ---- integrit, version 4.0 -----------------

Sounds great.

> yet the documentation needs to be updated before the release.
> README should probably include the reasons of RMD160 choice.

Yes, I agree.

> faq and integrit infos mention MD5 and SHA1. I'd say to remove
> entirely the hash name in the docs, use the generic term "checksum"
> and include a small section to introduce the hash algorithm used.

That's up to you.  I think, though, that the fact that
the checksum names are so easy to find in the sources
makes it easy to find and update any reference to a
specific algorithm on the rare occasion that it changes.

> Also mention somewhere that 4.0 breaks the db (not really,
> but all checksums will differ). I don't have time to do it now,
> so I think the release will wait until the end of the week.

That notice should be prominent in the release notes
and probably the README.  Somewhere (README?)
we could mention in the same breath that if you need
to keep and use your old databases, you should keep
an old version of integrit with them.

That will help head off requests that integrit 4 support
the old checksum algorithms.

--
  Ed L. Cashin <ec...@no...>

[Integrit-devel] integrit 4.0 should be ready

[Yuri D'E. <wa...@yu...>]

Updated the docs, placed a fat warning in both Changes and README.

Only "make distready" + tar is missing. I'm using a hand-patched  
autoconf on my box, so I would appreciate if someone else regenerated  
a "clean" configure.

Thanks