On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 15:19 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 18:01 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > they don't look like normal 160-bit SHA1 values. > > The file headers are misleading. The gpg signature used is a sha1 size, > but the checksum of the files themselves are actually sha256. Next time > we gpg sign checksum files we'll be sure to use a sha256 gpg signature. The hash sizes are correct for SHA256, but the values I compute for the source ISO images using sha256sum under RHEL5 are all different from those in Fedora-11-Beta-source-CHECKSUM. How did that happen?? --Doc Savage Fairview Heights, IL -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
