Le 29/09/2016 à 00:14, Stéphane Blondon a écrit :
> It's time to wait now. As you say, I will remind you about the task in
> one week or two if it's not done.
>
Steve added the checksums few weeks ago. I committed the removal of the
old checksum algorithms in the repository:
https://anonscm.deb
Le 27/09/2016 à 23:38, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 09:24:09AM +0200, Stéphane Blondon wrote:
>> I could commit the current version (with Holger's fix), wait for the
>> checksum generations, then commit the removal of the MD5 sentence.
>> So you can take time when you will be
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 09:24:09AM +0200, Stéphane Blondon wrote:
>Le 27/09/2016 à 01:21, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
>> No problem - it's something I can do directly myself on
>> cdimage.d.o. It won't take too long to do, but may take me a few days
>> to get around to. I'm currently away from home at
Le 27/09/2016 à 01:21, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
> No problem - it's something I can do directly myself on
> cdimage.d.o. It won't take too long to do, but may take me a few days
> to get around to. I'm currently away from home at a conference...
Great!
I could commit the current version (with Holg
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 01:17:44AM +0200, Stéphane Blondon wrote:
>Le 26/09/2016 à 20:03, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
>> To be honest, it might just be easier to go back and generate better
>> checksums for the older releases. It won't take too long, and would
>> simplify the docs and make it easier f
Le 26/09/2016 à 20:03, Steve McIntyre a écrit :
> To be honest, it might just be easier to go back and generate better
> checksums for the older releases. It won't take too long, and would
> simplify the docs and make it easier for users. How does that sound?
It's probably the best solution for th
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 07:57:06PM +0200, Holger Wansing wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Stéphane Blondon wrote:
>> After checking in the archive, MD5 checksum only is for very old releases:
>>
>> v.7: SHA512, SHA256, SHA1, MD5
>> v.6: SHA512, SHA256, SHA1, MD5
>> v.5: SHA1, MD5
>> v.4: SHA1, MD5
>> v.3.1: MD5
>>
Hi,
Stéphane Blondon wrote:
> After checking in the archive, MD5 checksum only is for very old releases:
>
> v.7: SHA512, SHA256, SHA1, MD5
> v.6: SHA512, SHA256, SHA1, MD5
> v.5: SHA1, MD5
> v.4: SHA1, MD5
> v.3.1: MD5
>
> So what do you think about:
>
> '''
> For CD releases older than Debia
Le 25/09/2016 à 22:02, Holger Wansing a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Stéphane Blondon wrote:
>> To validate the contents of a CD image, just be sure to use the
>> appropriate checksum tool.
>> -For older archived CD releases, only MD5 checksums were generated in
>> -the MD5SUMS files; you should use the
Hi,
Stéphane Blondon wrote:
> To validate the contents of a CD image, just be sure to use the
> appropriate checksum tool.
> -For older archived CD releases, only MD5 checksums were generated in
> -the MD5SUMS files; you should use the tool
> -md5sum to work with these.
> -For newer releases, n
Hello,
on the page https://www.debian.org/CD/verify.en.html, the explanation is
more based on MD5 than on better checksum algorithms. I think it would
be better to talk about SHA512 for default example and MD5 as fallback only.
I made a patch for that (see attachment).
I removed the reference fo
11 matches
Mail list logo
