On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 07:58:50AM +0100, Frank Murphy wrote: > On 12/08/10 07:38, cornel panceac wrote: > > 2010/8/12 Adam Miller <maxamillion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > <mailto:maxamillion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> > > > > Should be sha256 > > > > indeed, it is. it's better to say it, like here: > > > > It has been well announced for the paste number of releases that Fedora > is sha256. > > A quick Google: what checksum does fedora use > http://www.google.com/search?q=what+checksum+does+fedora+use&as_rights= Sigh. Well, at leas it doesn't have the big SHA1 sum above the GPG to confuse people. No, you shouldn't have to google for that--EVERY other distribution seems to be capable of saying, either in the directory holding a checksum or right above the checksum itself. It's just sloppiness. It's been well announced--yes, and with each release, until Fedora finally managed to to put, in the same place, that it was an SHA256 checksum, one would see on the forums how people downloaded, tried sha1 (because of the large SHA1 checksum, referring to the gpg, in the same place) figure they had it wrong, and download again. Not everyone has broadband, and even those who do, in many places, pay for extra bandwidth. Stop blaming it on the user--something so basic shouldn't require googling, especially when it seems that only Fedora has been incapable of making it plain. -- Scott Robbins PGP keyID EB3467D6 ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 ) gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6 Buffy: Do we really need weapons for this? Spike: I just like them. They make me feel all manly. -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
