On 25.03.2009 22:14, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 18:54, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
We afaics could start a mass-rebuild now if we want to, but I guess it
might make sense to wait for the ffmpeg update. Dominik?
Did you mean faad2/x264 update? [...]
Ahh,
rongerHash" directly, but for related
> | things; quoting a part from
> |
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2009-March/msg4.html
> | here:
> | """
> |> At the same time, Rel-Eng was attempting to get the Fedora 11 Beta
> packages
> |>
e-list/2009-March/msg4.html
| here:
| """
|> At the same time, Rel-Eng was attempting to get the Fedora 11 Beta
packages
|> signed with a newly generated f11-test key that is much larger in
size (this
|> is related to the Stronger Hashes Feature that is coming with F11).
The use
|&
ed with a newly generated f11-test key that is much larger in size (this
is related to the Stronger Hashes Feature that is coming with F11). The use
of the larger GPG key requires some different arguments to be passed to rpm
for the signing phase, including using --digest-algo sha256. The signing
s
2009/3/13 Nicolas Chauvet :
> Since we don't override the redhat-rpm-config we should already use
> StongerHashes.
>
> So I don't think we don't need to tweak anything from our
should read:
So I don't think we need to tweak anything from our
gt;>> starting the mass rebuild (ffmpeg?)
>>>>
>>>> I think we should do a mass rebuild, just as fedora did.
>>>
>>> BTW (in case that wasn't obvious from my earlier mail): I agree here ;-)
>>>
>>>> Does the “stronger hashes
eg?)
> >>> I think we should do a mass rebuild, just as fedora did.
> >> BTW (in case that wasn't obvious from my earlier mail): I agree here ;-)
> >>
> >>> Does the “stronger hashes” feature concern us as well?
> >> I'd say it "would be
or
scripted? And are there any big updates pending that we should do before
starting the mass rebuild (ffmpeg?)
I think we should do a mass rebuild, just as fedora did.
BTW (in case that wasn't obvious from my earlier mail): I agree here ;-)
Does the “stronger hashes” feature concern us as
l or
> >> scripted? And are there any big updates pending that we should do before
> >> starting the mass rebuild (ffmpeg?)
> > I think we should do a mass rebuild, just as fedora did.
>
> BTW (in case that wasn't obvious from my earlier mail): I agree here ;-
rebuild (ffmpeg?)
I think we should do a mass rebuild, just as fedora did.
BTW (in case that wasn't obvious from my earlier mail): I agree here ;-)
Does the “stronger hashes” feature concern us as well?
I'd say it "would be nice to have". But does anyone know what exact
st
10 matches
Mail list logo
