On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:08:11 +0200
> Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
>
>> Jesse Keating wrote:
>>> Also, it means that not all of our package set has the
>>> sha256 checksum, which is a checkbox item.
>>
>> Speaking of that, can RPM itself be built with SHA256 now that F11
>> Beta is out? IMHO it doesn't make sense to still support upgrades
>> (directly) from F11 Alpha.
>
> Yeah, I agree. Panu?
Just did this for rawhide. Personally I couldn't care much less what digests
rpm package for a release X is using but if you want to break the freeze for
this then sure I can switch F11 rpm to default digests too.
unless there is a compellingly good reason to do it - I'd say keep it as
it is, now. so that:
1. people could, conceivably go from not-quite-current F10 to F11GA
2. change == breakage as a general rule.
-sv