Am 14.10.2017 um 16:40 schrieb Andrea Pescetti: > Matthias Seidel wrote: >> While at it, we could also add support for SHA512. ;-) >> https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=127530 > > Yes, but while at it we could also... just fix the SHA256 bug and be > happy with it. > > Every time we add some other change "while at it", this has side > effects on the rest of the process. For example, this specific > "enhancement" will break the instructions for the tree preparation for > the SF area and will require changes to the download pages. > > We can have SHA512 starting from the next version (I mean 4.2.0). > There is no reason to pollute the RC5 tree when the vote is ongoing.
Don't get me wrong: This is exacty what I meant and therefore the issue is for Target Release 4.2.0 > > Of course, improved SHA256 hash files should instead be uploaded to > the RC5 tree since they are expected and fully supported by current > tools. > I have absolutely no problem verifying the hashes with "gpg --verify filemane.asc". How about others? And why did nobody complain in RC1, RC2 and RC4? Regards, Matthias > Regards, > Andrea. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
