2009/3/12 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info>:
On 12.03.2009 10:15, Dan Horák wrote:
>
> Thorsten Leemhuis píše v St 11. 03. 2009 v 08:15 +0100:
>>
>> On 10.03.2009 19:31, Julian Sikorski wrote:
>>>
>>> Thorsten Leemhuis pisze:
>>>>
>>>> So we got the new rpm and build for i586 now on x86-32. Are any other
>>>> changes needed? Do we want to do a mass rebuild? How: Manual or
>>>> scripted? And are there any big updates pending that we should do
>>>> before
>>>> starting the mass rebuild (ffmpeg?)
>>>
>>> I think we should do a mass rebuild, just as fedora did.
>>
>> BTW (in case that wasn't obvious from my earlier mail): I agree here ;-)
>>
>>> Does the “stronger hashes” feature concern us as well?
>>
>> I'd say it "would be nice to have". But does anyone know what exact
steps
>> we need to do to get it? After reading
>>
>>
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2009-March/msg00004....
>>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/StrongerHashes
>> is seems it requires a few changes in different areas of our infra.
>> Somebody afaics need to look into what exactly is needed. Any volunteers?
>> Anyone with a good connection to Fedora intra/Jesse/mitr that could ask for
>> advice?
>
> I talked to mitr and he is ready answer your questions, he is usually
> online on #fedora-devel.
Hehe, nice trick ;-) The purpose of my mail was to put the work (or at least
parts of it) on somebodies else todo-list and not on mine (which is filled
with lots of RPM-Fusion-related work already). I thought that was obvious
;-)
According to the 23/02/2009 commit's of redhat-rpm-config, theses
macros are added.
--------
+# Use SHA-256 for FILEDIGESTS instead of default MD5
+%_source_filedigest_algorithm 8
+%_binary_filedigest_algorithm 8
+
------------
Since we don't override the redhat-rpm-config we should already use
StongerHashes.
So I don't think we don't need to tweak anything from our
configuration. Furthermore packages built since this new
redhat-rpm-config already use strongerhash . (rpm -qR package show
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 ) This means they cannot be installed
on F-9 (GA + updates) nor F-10 vanilla (GA only) unless rpmlib
provides that capability.
Now the second part of the problem is:
Is it possible to sign these rpms. And I think that's depend if the
rpm version used to sign.
I was abble to do so, using F-10 + updates (meaning rpmlib >=
4.6.0-1), but I don't know which rpm version is used for signing
rpmfusion package. Is there a problem in this area ?
Nicolas (kwizart)