Sorry to ask, but how do you create that SHA?

gpg --print-md SHA512 ripple-emulator-0.9.32-incubating.tgz
ripple-emulator-0.9.32-incubating.tgz: 00629F87 82450176 C3F55E23
5968B7A5
                                       ABFABD9D 2189D424 2C4B4A67
                                       3D4681C5
                                       7F1020B8 F9822F1D 7A3FFB50
                                       AFEA5ACF
                                       EBEBBEF8 1EBCED9C 3E882723
                                       D5B39096

But:

cat ripple-emulator-0.9.32-incubating.tgz.sha1
63a997594e4f08df8d48a644962b47bee4efd91e
*ripple-emulator-0.9.32-incubating.tgz

Thanks!

Christian
-- 
  Christian Grobmeier
  http://www.grobmeier.de
  http://www.timeandbill.de

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015, at 07:48, Tim Barham wrote:
> [Since 0.9.31 was a bust because of a regression, here is another release
> that includes a fix for that regression (and a couple of other minor
> fixes)]
> 
> Please review and vote on the release of Ripple 0.9.32.
> 
> The package you are voting on is available for review at
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/ripple/. The SHA-1 hash
> for the package is:
> 
> 63a997594e4f08df8d48a644962b47bee4efd91e
> 
> It was published from its corresponding git tag:
> 
>     incubator-ripple: 0.9.32 (f8c6a0bc99)
> 
> While we need three +1 *binding* votes (which for an Apache Incubator
> project like Ripple means Apache IPMC members), active Ripple
> contributors and committers/PPMC members are still encouraged to review
> the release and vote. Before voting +1, please refer to and verify
> compliance with the checklist at
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list
> (however, we only need to consider changes since the previous release).
> 
> If you do vote +1, please include the steps you took in order to be
> confident the release meets requirements.
> 
> Upon a successful vote, I will upload the archive to
> dist/release/incubator/ripple and publish it to NPM.
> 
> I vote +1:
> * Verified license headers with Apache RAT (using 'jake rat').
> * Manually verified there were no new source files that need license
> headers, nor new third party dependencies that needed to have license
> information included in the LICENSE file.
> * Verified the build works and all tests pass.
> * Manually tested all changes that have been made since the last release.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Tim
> 

Reply via email to