Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 804049
mention that SHA256 is used for file digest
Last modified: 2013-02-21 05:51:21 EST
Description of problem:
rpm manpage is refering to MD5 digests in many places, it is also part of the name of some options. It should be mentioned that rpm is actually using SHA256 hashes.
Query package that contains a given file identifier, i.e. the MD5 digest of the file
Query package that contains a given package identifier, i.e. the MD5 digest of the
combined header and payload contents.
Verifying a package compares information about the installed files in the package with
information about the files taken from the package metadata stored in the rpm database.
Among other things, verifying compares the size, MD5 sum, permissions, type, owner and group
of each file. Any discrepancies are displayed. Files that were not installed from the
package, for example, documentation files excluded on installation using the "--excludedocs"
option, will be silently ignored.
S file Size differs
M Mode differs (includes permissions and file type)
5 MD5 sum differs
D Device major/minor number mismatch
L readLink(2) path mismatch
U User ownership differs
G Group ownership differs
T mTime differs
P caPabilities differ
Rpm uses whatever digest it was configured to use when building packages. RHEL-6 content has SHA256 file digests, older packages have MD5 and 3rd party packages could (although there's not much point in doing so) use something different still. So it's not a case of s/MD5/SHA256/, more like s/MD5/digest/ but it's not that straightforward either as there are places where MD5 is still used, such as the pkgid.
In other words, it's not a straightforward 'perl -pi -e "s/MD5/SHA256/"' job and dunno if it's really worth the trouble for rhel-6 at this point, there are probably more important issues to address. Obviously the terminology should be fixed at least upstream sooner or later.
'perl -pi -e "s/MD5/SHA256/"' is not what I ment. Actually, I think that mentioning that other digest than MD5 are possible would be fine.
This request was not resolved in time for the current release.
Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to
propose this request, if still desired, for consideration in
the next release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
This request was erroneously removed from consideration in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4, which is currently under development. This request will be evaluated for inclusion in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4.
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for
inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux release. Product
Management has requested further review of this request by
Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red Hat
Enterprise Linux release for currently deployed products.
This request is not yet committed for inclusion in a release.
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.
For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.
If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.