Re: Proposal to change partition table layouts for EFI bootable ISOs

Hi Thomas! On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 06:21:30PM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > >this text is about the partition table layouts of EFI-ready bootable ISO 9660 >images and the opportunity to unify and improve them. > >Overview: >- Situation >- Flaws and remedy options >- Change proposals for debian-cd

Re: Dropping older, less-secure checksums files

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 03:58:13PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >Hey folks, > >We currently make 4 different checksums files for installer, live and >openstack images published from cdimage.d.o (aka get.d.o, cloud.d.o): >MD5SUMS, SHA1SUMS, SHA256SUMS and SHA512SUMS. > >Prompted by a discussion on i

Re: Dropping older, less-secure checksums files

I wouldn't object to dropping the older hashes completely On 16 July 2019 16:04:28 BST, Holger Levsen wrote: >On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 03:58:13PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> ...I'm looking >> into dropping generation of the older, less secure MD5 and SHA1 >> checksums. I'm planning on leavin

Re: Dropping older, less-secure checksums files

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 03:58:13PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > ...I'm looking > into dropping generation of the older, less secure MD5 and SHA1 > checksums. I'm planning on leaving these alone for existing releases, > including for future stretch and buster point release builds. But for > regula

Dropping older, less-secure checksums files

Hey folks, We currently make 4 different checksums files for installer, live and openstack images published from cdimage.d.o (aka get.d.o, cloud.d.o): MD5SUMS, SHA1SUMS, SHA256SUMS and SHA512SUMS. Prompted by a discussion on irc a couple of days back, I'm looking into dropping generation of the o