On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 14:23 +0100, Petr Schindler wrote:
If you have some objection on this one, please, let me know till
tomorrow, otherwise if there are no suggestions I'll make changes.
I've made changes. I've added new alpha and final release criterion to
[1] [2]. And I've changed release
If you have some objection on this one, please, let me know till
tomorrow, otherwise if there are no suggestions I'll make changes.
On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 11:40 +0100, Petr Schindler wrote:
On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 10:23 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 07:48 -0500, Petr
On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 10:23 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 07:48 -0500, Petr Schindler wrote:
OK, so test case should stay in alpha and new criterion should be in
alpha too. I propose to drop the part about embedded checksum (that
would be only additional check) and
On 01/02/12 10:40, Petr Schindler wrote:
You are right. So beside this alpha criterion I propose new final
criterion:
If there is embedded checksum on ISO media, it must be correct.
Not trying to hijack.
But, is there a reason md5 is still being used?
--
Regards,
Frank Murphy, friend
Frank Murphy frankly3d at gmail.com writes:
If there is embedded checksum on ISO media, it must be correct.
Not trying to hijack.
But, is there a reason md5 is still being used?
A built-in checksum is only useful for checking for natural corruption, not a
deliberate fake (since in that
On 01/02/12 16:11, Andre Robatino wrote:
A built-in checksum is only useful for checking for natural corruption, not a
deliberate fake (since in that case it's easy to change the checksum to the
correct one for the fake). Even md5 is more than enough for this purpose.
So it's not error
Frank Murphy frankly3d at gmail.com writes:
A built-in checksum is only useful for checking for natural corruption, not
a
deliberate fake (since in that case it's easy to change the checksum to the
correct one for the fake). Even md5 is more than enough for this purpose.
So it's not
On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 16:33 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
Frank Murphy frankly3d at gmail.com writes:
A built-in checksum is only useful for checking for natural corruption,
not a
deliberate fake (since in that case it's easy to change the checksum to
the
correct one for the
From: Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com
To: For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:51:16 AM
Subject: Re: New criterion for Checksum
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 18:02 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
Petr Schindler
On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 07:48 -0500, Petr Schindler wrote:
OK, so test case should stay in alpha and new criterion should be in
alpha too. I propose to drop the part about embedded checksum (that
would be only additional check) and new criterion should be:
A correct checksum must be published
I propose new final criterion:
There must be published correct checksum for each ISO media. Also if there is
embedded checksum on ISO media, it must be correct.
I think we should check this. We have already test case [1]. I propose to
change release level for this test case to final.
[1]
Petr Schindler pschindl at redhat.com writes:
I propose new final criterion:
There must be published correct checksum for each ISO media. Also if there is
embedded checksum on ISO
media, it must be correct.
I think we should check this. We have already test case [1]. I propose to
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 11:23 -0500, Petr Schindler wrote:
I propose new final criterion:
There must be published correct checksum for each ISO media. Also if
there is embedded checksum on ISO media, it must be correct.
Small grammar fixes:
A correct checksum published for each official
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 18:02 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
Petr Schindler pschindl at redhat.com writes:
I propose new final criterion:
There must be published correct checksum for each ISO media. Also if there
is
embedded checksum on ISO
media, it must be correct.
I think we
14 matches
Mail list logo
