SHA1 and 256 (again) :)

[Jesse Keating]

On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 21:55 -0500, Scott Robbins wrote:
> I vaguely remember some discussion about fixing the layout of the
> checksums so that it was clear one had to run sha256sum rather than
> sha1.  
> 
> However, I see that it's still rather misleading in appearance--that is,
> the words SHA1 sum are written there along with what I assume are the
> sha256 sums.  (I didn't actually download an ISO to check, but it seems
> to be a lot of numbers for an sha1.)
> 
> The nice people at distrowatch are apparently among the ones confused by
> this, as their links to downloads also include links clearly marked
> SHA1.  
> 
> A minor issue to be sure, but those who frequent the forums know how
> Those Who Wish To Try The Latest will almost certainly be confused. 
> 


This is planned to be fixed in F13, it was too late to make this change
for F12 when it really came to a head as we were past the feature
freeze, and as the release engineer, I really should respect the feature
freeze.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/attachments/20091117/2711dbcc/attachment.sig>