On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 11:57 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > Reviving this discussion from August to make a decision on what we're
> > going to do about the mediacheck release criterion
> >
> > The current criterion reads:
> >
> > If there is an embedded checksum on any release medium, it must be
>
> Reviving this discussion from August to make a decision on what we're
> going to do about the mediacheck release criterion
>
> The current criterion reads:
>
> If there is an embedded checksum on any release medium, it must be
> correct.
>
> The last proposed criterion update was:
>
> > "If t
Reviving this discussion from August to make a decision on what we're
going to do about the mediacheck release criterion
The current criterion reads:
If there is an embedded checksum on any release medium, it must be
correct.
The last proposed criterion update was:
> "If there is an embedded ch
> Adam Williamson redhat.com> writes:
>
> > I think this is a good idea, yeah. Wording the criterion could be a
> > little tricky, though - it feels like one of those areas where you
> > have
> > to be careful and precise about how you encapsulate 'works'. How
> > important are false negatives? F
Adam Williamson redhat.com> writes:
> I think this is a good idea, yeah. Wording the criterion could be a
> little tricky, though - it feels like one of those areas where you have
> to be careful and precise about how you encapsulate 'works'. How
> important are false negatives? False positive
On 2012-08-20 10:09, Andre Robatino wrote:
At the moment, there is a Final Criterion that states "If there is an
embedded
checksum on any release medium, it must be correct", which means that
in this
case you can run checkisomd5 externally and have it work. There is
nothing that
ensures that th
