On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:08:11 +0200
Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
Also, it means that not all of our package set has the
sha256 checksum, which is a checkbox item.
Speaking of that, can RPM itself be built with SHA256 now that F11
Beta is out? IMHO it doesn't make sense to still support upgrades
(directly) from F11 Alpha.
Yeah, I agree. Panu?
Just did this for rawhide. Personally I couldn't care much less what digests
rpm package for a release X is using but if you want to break the freeze for
this then sure I can switch F11 rpm to default digests too.
unless there is a compellingly good reason to do it - I'd say keep it as
it is, now. so that:
1. people could, conceivably go from not-quite-current F10 to F11GA
2. change == breakage as a general rule.
-sv
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
