On 11/19/2009 03:43 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 02:26 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> On 11/19/2009 02:20 AM, Scott Robbins wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:30:37AM -0500, Scott Robbins wrote: >>> >>> As suspect, there's already posts on the forums about this. (Smugly >>> mutters, "told ya so". :) >>> >>> Seriously, someone pointed out that some docmentation, the docs for >>> burning CD's seem to indicate that one should use sha1. >>> >>> >>> http://docs.fedoraproject.org/readme-burning-isos/en_US/sn-validating-files.html >>> >>> That should probably get fixed--I'm not sure if I have write access, and >>> I don't have a Windows machine to test the instructions, so someone? >> >> Refer to >> >> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-websites-list/2009-November/msg00047.html >> >> Note that changing HASH: SHA1 to anything else in the top of the file >> will make the gpg check fail since it writes it out that way. So it's >> sort of a tricky issue to solve. Not sloppiness. > > To be clear, I think the documentation page that Scott linked talks > about SHA-1 not because someone misread the checksum file but simply > because it's _old_. It was written at a time when the checksums actually > where SHA-1. Note the reference to Fedora 7. > > I think the above page needs to be updated to refer to SHA-256 > checksums. Also, both it and https://fedoraproject.org/en/verify might > benefit from explicitly mentioning the potential confusion between the > signature algorithm and the checksum algorithm, until F13 is current. As you can read from the link to fedora-websites list, updating that documentation requires a Windows utility we can trust on. Rahul -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
