scottro at nyc.rr.com
Thu Aug 12 09:45:10 UTC 2010
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 at fedoraproject.org
> > <mailto:maxamillion at fedoraproject.org>>
> > 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
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.
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.
More information about the test