Greetings again,
I've been continuing to fool with this. I'm hoping someone smarter than I
can shed a little more light on it. Here's what I've discovered since my
last post.
It seems that on my system, it takes more than the allowed 10 seconds for
the disks to appear. I removed "quiet" fr
Sure, please add the information on archwiki.
BTW I get most this information from this comment by csslayer:
https://github.com/flatpak/freedesktop-sdk-images/issues/43#issuecomment-343030611
Csslayer is the main developper of fcitx, and [his
blog](https://www.csslayer.info/wordpress/tag/fcitx/)
I could not have asked for a better explanation. Thank you very much.
Some of this should be mentioned on the wiki page. Would you like to add it?
Would it be all right if I added the information, referencing this mailing list
post?
On 2018年05月10日 13時34分, Jiachen YANG via arch-general wrote
The single most beneficial change would be adoption of
The Update Framework, since it is resilient against
all known issues with remote package management,
regardless of pkg signers coming/going and whether
HTTPS is used or not. It also has a nice protocol
for handling key revocation.
On 05/10/2018 05:46 AM, Leonid Isaev via arch-general wrote:
> In this regard, I don't understand why we need checksums at all? If upstream:
> (1) signes source with GPG, it will take care of both integrity and
> authenticity, so no need for hashes;
> (2) doesn't provide signatures, rely on gz
On Thu, 10 May 2018 03:46:34 -0600, Leonid Isaev via arch-general wrote:
>GPG is not complicated at all.
https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/linux-rt/#comment-645504
SICR
--
pacman -Q linux{,-rt{,-pussytoes,-securityink,-cornflower}}|cut -d\ -f2
4.16.7-1
4.16.7_rt1-1
4.14.34_rt27-1
4.14.29_rt25-
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:06:08AM +0200, NicoHood wrote:
> I really like you effort on stronger hashes. I totally aggree with you
> that we need those, if we can't have GPG signatures by the maintainers.
> Hashes just help in less usecases than GPG signatures, of course, but
> they do.
Currently,
On 05/10/2018 01:25 AM, Leonid Isaev via arch-general wrote:
> On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 09:30:51PM +0200, Neven Sajko wrote:
>> I would just like to note that SHA-2 hashes are inferior to Keccak and
>> to BLAKE2. So better not to spend effort migrating to SHA-2.
>
> Strength of various SHA hashes i
8 matches
Mail list logo
