Repository navigation
Conversation
commit 810d7bd introduced checksums for static binaries. These checksums use the standard format produced by sha256sum, which includes both the checksum and filename. When adding checksum validation to the official docker:dind image repository, there was discussion which format is most expected for a per-file checksum; using the sha256sum format allows `sha256sum -c <package>.sha256` to verify the package, but there's also various situations where a bare checksum is preferable. Unfortunately, there are no strict conventions here; either option makes sense. However, some further searching for precedents / conventions led me to the containerd repository; containerd publishes checksums and also uses the `sha256sum` format. However, those files use a `.sha256sum` file- extension (see [containerd@650a7e5]). Using `.sha256sum` as file-extension makes the format less ambiguous; it also keeps a path open to publish _both_ a bare checksum _and_ a sha256sum format. It also aligns with the conventions used by containerd, which gives some consistency between related projects. Given that we didn't ship a stable release yet with these checksums, we can still make changes. This patch renames the checksumfiles to use `.sha256sum` as file-extension. updates 810d7bd updates 7d994c2 [containerd@650a7e5]: containerd/containerd@650a7e5 Signed-off-by: Sebastiaan van Stijn <github@gone.nl>
thaJeztah
requested review from
glours and
ndeloof
and removed request for
a team
November 11, 2026 11:42
Member
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
commit 810d7bd introduced checksums for static binaries. These checksums use the standard format produced by sha256sum, which includes both the checksum and filename.
When adding checksum validation to the official docker:dind image repository, there was discussion which format is most expected for a per-file checksum; using the sha256sum format allows
sha256sum -c <package>.sha256to verify the package, but there's also various situations where a bare checksum is preferable.Unfortunately, there are no strict conventions here; either option makes sense. However, some further searching for precedents / conventions led me to the containerd repository; containerd publishes checksums and also uses the
sha256sumformat. However, those files use a.sha256sumfile- extension (see containerd@650a7e5).Using
.sha256sumas file-extension makes the format less ambiguous; it also keeps a path open to publish both a bare checksum and a sha256sum format. It also aligns with the conventions used by containerd, which gives some consistency between related projects.Given that we didn't ship a stable release yet with these checksums, we can still make changes. This patch renames the checksumfiles to use
.sha256sumas file-extension.updates 810d7bd
updates 7d994c2