Re: [fossil-users] Release 1.35 checksums?

2016-07-01 Thread Richard Hipp
On 7/1/16, Ross Berteig wrote: > On 7/1/2016 10:11 AM, Lonnie Abelbeck wrote: >> It seems the Checksums are on a different site from the downloads, >> raising the bar for mischief. BTW including 1.35 now. >> http://www.hwaci.com/fossil_download_checksums.html > > FYI, Hwaci is D. R. Hipp's company

Re: [fossil-users] Release 1.35 checksums?

2016-07-01 Thread Lonnie Abelbeck
On Jul 1, 2016, at 3:42 PM, Ross Berteig wrote: > On 7/1/2016 10:11 AM, Lonnie Abelbeck wrote: >> It seems the Checksums are on a different site from the downloads, >> raising the bar for mischief. BTW including 1.35 now. >> http://www.hwaci.com/fossil_download_checksums.html > > FYI, Hwaci is

Re: [fossil-users] Release 1.35 checksums?

2016-07-01 Thread Ross Berteig
On 7/1/2016 10:11 AM, Lonnie Abelbeck wrote: It seems the Checksums are on a different site from the downloads, raising the bar for mischief. BTW including 1.35 now. http://www.hwaci.com/fossil_download_checksums.html FYI, Hwaci is D. R. Hipp's company that owns the assigned copyrights to all

Re: [fossil-users] Release 1.35 checksums?

2016-07-01 Thread Ross Berteig
On 7/1/2016 10:35 AM, Warren Young wrote: On Jul 1, 2016, at 11:13 AM, Todd C. Olson wrote: Then why does fossil-scm.org offer checksums at all? Better question: why does any download site offer checksums? One answer is mirrors. If a download is widely mirrored, then one might have reason f

Re: [fossil-users] Release 1.35 checksums?

2016-07-01 Thread Warren Young
On Jul 1, 2016, at 11:13 AM, Todd C. Olson wrote: > > Then why does fossil-scm.org offer checksums at all? Better question: why does any download site offer checksums? My answer: I have no idea, which is why I ask these questions ever time the question comes up. I have yet to get a satisfacto

Re: [fossil-users] Can fossil be made to work on OS X 10.11.5 network home directories (over AFP or SMB or NFS)?

2016-07-01 Thread Warren Young
On Jun 30, 2016, at 8:07 PM, Todd C. Olson wrote: > > Using the fossil OS X binary v1.35 provided at fossil-scm.org in a networked > home directory provided over AFP, I am unable to create a new fossil > repository > % fossil init test01.fossil > SQLITE_IOERR: statement aborts at 1: [BEGIN EXCL

Re: [fossil-users] Release 1.35 checksums?

2016-07-01 Thread Lonnie Abelbeck
On Jul 1, 2016, at 11:39 AM, Warren Young wrote: > On Jun 30, 2016, at 7:21 PM, Todd C. Olson wrote: >> >> The checksum file on the down load page only has values for up to v1.34 >> Where do we get the values for v1.35 > > Why do you trust such things in the first case? > > If you’re expecti

Re: [fossil-users] Release 1.35 checksums?

2016-07-01 Thread Todd C. Olson
Then why does fossil-scm.org offer checksums at all? Regards, tco2 > On Fr, 2016-07-01, at 12:39, Warren Young wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2016, at 7:21 PM, Todd C. Olson wrote: >> >> The checksum file on the down load page only has values for up to v1.34 >> Where do we get the values for v1.35 >

Re: [fossil-users] Release 1.35 checksums?

2016-07-01 Thread bch
On Jul 1, 2016 9:39 AM, "Warren Young" wrote: > > On Jun 30, 2016, at 7:21 PM, Todd C. Olson wrote: > > > > The checksum file on the down load page only has values for up to v1.34 > > Where do we get the values for v1.35 > > Why do you trust such things in the first case? > > If you’re looking to

Re: [fossil-users] Release 1.35 checksums?

2016-07-01 Thread Warren Young
On Jun 30, 2016, at 7:21 PM, Todd C. Olson wrote: > > The checksum file on the down load page only has values for up to v1.34 > Where do we get the values for v1.35 Why do you trust such things in the first case? If you’re looking to checksums to protect you against MITM malware injection, the