[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: HEADS UP: checksums change is not backward comp
From: |
Colin Walters |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: HEADS UP: checksums change is not backward compatible |
Date: |
Fri, 16 Jan 2004 00:56:20 -0500 |
On Thu, 2004-01-15 at 22:41, James Blackwell wrote:
> 67 out of 78 archives (as per mirrors.sourcecontrol.net) are md5
> checksumed. Let me repeat that in a different way.
>
> 78.2% are about to break.
> ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~
No - SHA1 sums are optional. No one will have to rebuild their
archives.
Let me lay this out as explicitly as possible. The *only* problem I
know about is that people who are currently using tla 1.2pre0 will have
to upgrade their binary executable to 1.2 official. No other changes
will have to be made.
That said, it's probably a good idea to rebuild your archive to include
SHA1 sums. But by no means mandatory.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- [Gnu-arch-users] HEADS UP: checksums change is not backward compatible, Samuel Tardieu, 2004/01/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] HEADS UP: checksums change is not backward compatible, Robert Collins, 2004/01/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: HEADS UP: checksums change is not backward compatible, Aaron Bentley, 2004/01/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: HEADS UP: checksums change is not backward compatible, Tom Lord, 2004/01/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: HEADS UP: checksums change is not backward compatible, Robert Collins, 2004/01/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: HEADS UP: checksums change is not backward compatible, Tom Lord, 2004/01/20
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: HEADS UP: checksums change is not backward compatible, Robert Collins, 2004/01/20
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: HEADS UP: checksums change is not backward compatible, Andrew Suffield, 2004/01/20
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: HEADS UP: checksums change is not backward compatible, James Blackwell, 2004/01/20