9:21 a.m.
When I downloaded the F11 preview isos and tried to check the download using
sha1sum (as I had done for previous versions) the checksums failed with an
error message from the sha1sum command. However using sha256sum worked just
fine.
Has the guidance been updated on this ahead of F11 GA?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Checking-isos-with-sha---small-wrinkle-tp23870954p2...
Sent from the Fedora Test List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
10:01 a.m.
Mike Cloaked wrote:
When I downloaded the F11 preview isos and tried to check the
download using sha1sum (as I had done for previous versions) the
checksums failed with an error message from the sha1sum command.
However using sha256sum worked just fine.
Has the guidance been updated on this ahead of F11 GA?
When the website is updated for the release, fedoraproject.org/verify
will reflect this. The change is already made in the website
repository, it's just waiting to go live until the release.
--
Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ah! Useless! Every one of you! Fine. I will defend myself and to
hell with all of you!
-- Stewie Griffin
10:06 a.m.
Todd Zullinger wrote:
When the website is updated for the release, fedoraproject.org/verify
will reflect this. The change is already made in the website
repository, it's just waiting to go live until the release.
In the file README-BURNING-ISOS-en_US.txt that is currently being synced to
mirrors it still refers to sha1sum.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Checking-isos-with-sha---small-wrinkle-tp23870954p2...
Sent from the Fedora Test List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
10:57 a.m.
Mike Cloaked wrote:
In the file README-BURNING-ISOS-en_US.txt that is currently being
synced to mirrors it still refers to sha1sum.
That's as I would expect, since that advice applies to the current
stable release. Hopefully the docs team has an update queued to note
the use of sha256sum when F-11 is released.
--
Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And oh, don't you know that I'm always feelin' able
When I'm sittin' home and I'm carving out your navel
7:39 a.m.
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 11:57:41AM -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
Mike Cloaked wrote:
> In the file README-BURNING-ISOS-en_US.txt that is currently being
> synced to mirrors it still refers to sha1sum.
That's as I would expect, since that advice applies to the current
stable release. Hopefully the docs team has an update queued to note
the use of sha256sum when F-11 is released.
Todd, thanks for sending this on to the fedora-docs-list. We try and
keep abreast of the moderation queue but I hadn't done that myself in
a while. Just let it through this morning.
A hint for people who want to be able to do cross-team posting:
* Sign up for as many email lists as you can.
* Set all of the lists you don't want to receive to "No mail."
Now you can post where you need to, to facilitate cross-team work, but
you don't have to receive, read, or delete additional mountains of
mail.
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
10:03 a.m.
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 07:21:06AM -0700, Mike Cloaked wrote:
When I downloaded the F11 preview isos and tried to check the download using
sha1sum (as I had done for previous versions) the checksums failed with an
error message from the sha1sum command. However using sha256sum worked just
fine.
Has the guidance been updated on this ahead of F11 GA?
If you look at the checksum textfile, it now says Hash:SHA256
(For awhile it mentioned SHA1 or something, referring to the GPG sigs.)
It's also in the Beta release notes, with specific instructions to use
sha256.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Beta_release_notes
(Just below the yellow background warning you to back up data, under the
screenshot tour--or, just search sha256 on the page. :) )
--
Scott Robbins
PGP keyID EB3467D6
( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 )
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6
Buffy: Your logic does not resemble our Earth logic.
Xander: Mine's much more advanced.
10:59 a.m.
Scott Robbins wrote:
If you look at the checksum textfile, it now says Hash:SHA256 (For
awhile it mentioned SHA1 or something, referring to the GPG sigs.)
That Hash line is only for the gpg signature and not the checksum data
that is being signed in the CHECKSUM file. It would be bad for people
to conflate the two. :)
--
Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors, and
miss.
-- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"
12:59 p.m.
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 11:59:39AM -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
Scott Robbins wrote:
> If you look at the checksum textfile, it now says Hash:SHA256 (For
> awhile it mentioned SHA1 or something, referring to the GPG sigs.)
That Hash line is only for the gpg signature and not the checksum data
that is being signed in the CHECKSUM file. It would be bad for people
to conflate the two. :)
Yes, as I said, it referred to the GPG. :)
However, it was confusing people, judging from a few questions on the
forums.
Unless one regularly works with check sums, if you see a 40 something
digit number, you're not going to realize it should be a 60 digit one so
it's easy to make the error. If you work with them a lot, of course,
your eye will note that it seems shorter than usual.
At any rate, it's pretty clear now.
--
Scott Robbins
PGP keyID EB3467D6
( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 )
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6
Forrest: This is the burden we bear, brother. We have a gig that
would inevitably cause any girl living to think we are cool upon
cool. Yet, we must Clark Kent our way through the dating scene,
never to use our unfair advantage. Thank God we're pretty.
5500
days inactive
5501
days old
7 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
mike cloaked -
Paul W. Frields -
Scott Robbins -
Todd Zullinger