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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Support BAZELISK_VERIFY_SHA256 for multiplatform projects #522

Open
hauserx opened this issue Dec 13, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

Support BAZELISK_VERIFY_SHA256 for multiplatform projects #522

hauserx opened this issue Dec 13, 2023 · 1 comment
Labels
help wanted Needs help from external contributors P2 We'll consider working on this in future. (Assignee optional) type: feature request New feature or request

Comments

@hauserx
Copy link

hauserx commented Dec 13, 2023

Bazelisk downloads platform specific version of bazel (windows,linux,etc) and then verifies SHA with value from BAZELISK_VERIFY_SHA256. It does not work if a given project is built on more than one platform.

Possibly bazelisk could search for platform specific SHA, and use those if found:

BAZELISK_VERIFY_SHA256_LINUX_X86_64
BAZELISK_VERIFY_SHA256_WINDOWS_ARM64

If specific variable is not found then it would fallback to BAZELISK_VERIFY_SHA256 as today.
@fweikert fweikert added type:bug Something isn't working type: feature request New feature or request P2 We'll consider working on this in future. (Assignee optional) help wanted Needs help from external contributors and removed type:bug Something isn't working labels Jan 19, 2024
@hauserx
Copy link
Author

hauserx commented May 13, 2024

Alternative version that would allow to error out if os-arch for current platform is missing:

BAZELISK_VERIFY_SHA256=linux-x86_64:64b0832fd6c57635b9de3711d51beca9c4bf99c6bb3b663249cdbfdca16fb9f1,windows-x86_64:9fb6f439e2eb646b9bae7bd2c0317165c0b08abc0bba25f6af53180fa1f86997

It creates somewhat long lines so still wonder which version to implement.

For stock bazel though I think verifying signature could be better - #15

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
help wanted Needs help from external contributors P2 We'll consider working on this in future. (Assignee optional) type: feature request New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@fweikert @hauserx