SHA1 and 256 (again) :)
awilliam at redhat.com
Wed Nov 18 22:13:55 UTC 2009
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
> 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.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
More information about the fedora-test-list