Download Windows Sharing Pack V0.9.8 WORK
Click Here ->>->>->> https://blltly.com/2tq5lp
Thanks so much @GunnarFarneback . Yes, I think that this might be related to the firewall or some proxy settings. What is weird is that I can enter to GitHub - JuliaPackaging/Preferences.jl: Project Preferences Package or to GitHub - JuliaInterop/VersionParsing.jl: flexible VersionNumber parsing in Julia through the browser, however, it does not work to download the packages through Julia.
We've also made package itself display download progress, which is great when software binaries are embedded in packages. For you folks looking to remove any progress (like when using Vagrant), now you can use --no-progress. When NuGet.Core has issues, those issues will have more visibility into why things are failing without needing a debugging log. Speaking of some extreme visibility, see network traffic with --trace.
A couple of important fixes/enhancements in this release. Most of the improvements are about providing better feedback to you and fixing minor issues. The big one surrounds when packages set a download path for a file using $env:TEMP, choco will ensure that the file can still be found for later use.
Perhaps the biggest improvement in this release is that Chocolatey will automatically look to see if it can download binaries over HTTPS when provided an HTTP url. If so, Chocolatey will switch to downloading the binaries over SSL. This provides better security in downloading and knowing you are getting the binary from the source location instead of a possible man in the middle location, especially when the package does not provide checksums for verification.
Checksums in package scripts are meant as a measure to validate the originally intended downloaded resources used in the creation of a package are the same files that are received at a future date. This also ensures that the same files that are checked by all parts of moderation (if applicable) are the same files that are received by users for a package. This is seen mostly on the community repository because it is public and packages are subject to copyright laws (distribution rights), which typically requires the package scripts to download software from the official distribution locations. The Chocolatey framework has had the ability to use checksums in package scripts since July 2014.
What is the requirement choco will now fail if a package download resources from HTTP/FTP and does not use checksums to verify those downloaded resources. The requirement for HTTP/FTP is #112. We are considering also requiring it for HTTPS (#895) as well. You can optionally set a feature (allowEmptyChecksumsSecure) to ensure packages using HTTPS also use checksums.
How does this protect the community anymore than before During moderation review, there is a check of these downloaded binaries against VirusTotal (which verifies these binaries against 50-60+ different virus scanners). The binaries are also verified for installation purposes against a test computer. With an independent 3rd party checksum in the package itself, it guarantees that the files received by a user from those remote sources are the exact same files that were used in the verification process.
Why the requirement, and why now This is a measure of protection for the Chocolatey community. HTTP is easy to hack with both DNS poisoning and MITM (man in the middle) attacks. Without independent verification of the integrity of the downloaded resources, users can be left susceptible to these issues. We've been planning a move to require checksums for awhile now, with a planned longer and smoother transition for package maintainers to get packages updated to reduce breakages. Unfortunately there was a recent event with FOSSHub getting hacked (the community repository had 8 possibly affected packages and we quickly took action), which necessitated a need for us to move in a much swifter fashion to ensure the protection of the community sooner, rather than later. The changes in Chocolatey represented by the checksum changes a