[00:15: 2] libregee2ingkid (~libregeek@157.119.218.21) joined #hamara.
[00:18: 3] libregee1ingkid (~libregeek@111.93.193.54) left irc: Remote host closed the connection
[00:20: 4] libregee2ingkid (~libregeek@157.119.218.21) left irc:
[00:22: 9] libregee1ingkid (~libregeek@157.119.218.21) joined #hamara.
[00:24: 1] libregeekingkid (~libregeek@157.119.218.21) left irc: Ping timeout: 480 seconds
[00:41: 5] <libregee1ingkid> ls
[00:41: 6] <libregee1ingkid> oops, wrong shell
[00:45: 9] <libregee1ingkid> jonas: the 32 bit ISO is having issues building. I guess a better way would be to disable that dowload button for 32 bit download.
[01:19: 8] <jonas> I agree
[02:24: 5] libregee1ingkid (~libregeek@157.119.218.21) left irc: Quit: leaving
[02:26: 1] libregeekingkid (~libregeek@157.119.218.21) joined #hamara.
[04:03: 6] libregeekingkid (~libregeek@157.119.218.21) left irc: Read error: No route to host
[04:03: 8] libregeekingkid (~libregeek@157.119.218.21) joined #hamara.
[04:20: 1] libregeekingkid (~libregeek@157.119.218.21) left irc: Ping timeout: 480 seconds
[10:16: 8] <reflector[m]> Do we have our twitter channel?
[10:40: 1] libregeekingkid (~libregeek@157.119.218.21) joined #hamara.
[11:21: 5] <shreya_sharma[m]> https://twitter.com/hamaralinux
[12:17: 7] cindal (~cindal@0BGAAAV8K.tor-irc.dnsbl.oftc.net) joined #hamara.
[12:47: 1] libregeekingkid (~libregeek@157.119.218.21) left irc: Ping timeout: 480 seconds
[12:49: 8] cindal (~cindal@0BGAAAV8K.tor-irc.dnsbl.oftc.net) left irc: Remote host closed the connection
[13:22: 6] libregeekingkid (~libregeek@111.93.193.54) joined #hamara.
[13:24: 9] libregeekingkid1 (~rajudev@111.93.193.54) joined #hamara.
[13:25: (null)
[13:25: 9] libregeekingkid1 (~rajudev@111.93.193.54) left irc:
[13:27: 9] <isaagar[m]> Manas kashyap: https://bugs.hamaralinux.org/show_bug.cgi?id=398
[13:28: 0] <libregeekingkid[m]> Manas kashyap: did you looked into #408
[13:31: 3] <reflector[m]> Researching on it
[14:40: 6] libregee1ingkid (~libregeek@111.93.193.54) joined #hamara.
[14:40: 2] libregee1ingkid (~libregeek@111.93.193.54) left irc:
[14:41: 3] libregee1ingkid (~libregeek@111.93.193.54) joined #hamara.
[14:43: 4] libregee1ingkid (~libregeek@111.93.193.54) left irc:
[14:47: 3] libregee1ingkid (~libregeek@111.93.193.54) joined #hamara.
[15:07: 5] <unixia[m]> > A anantsaraswat: this would be a good one for U unixia as she is documenting how to add new packages to the iso
[15:07: 6] <unixia[m]> Taking this up. Shall look into this soon after finishing the wiki post.
[15:07: 6] <isaagar[m]> Vik: some design issues are pending
[15:12: 8] <vik[m]> isaagar: yeah, am chasing that up atm
[15:30: 5] <libregee1ingkid> jonas: I disabled the 32 bit download button, till we get a 32 bit ISO there.
[15:32: (null)
[16:19: (null)
[16:34: 1] <libregee1ingkid> jonas: Yeah, the space on the website.
[16:48: 8] <jonas> hm. I would say that if visual design is more important than security, then perhaps better to not post SHA* checksum at all!
[16:49: 2] <vik[m]> libregee1ingkid: maybe you could put the string in a file?
[16:53: 2] <libregee1ingkid> vik[m]: Yep. That way I could provide all SHA1, SHA256 and SHA512 together. Let me see on how to enable that.
[17:59: (null)
[17:59: 8] <isaagar[m]> you can add without disturbing design . You can try tweaking in wordpress
[18:20: 4] <jonas> libregeekingkid: Did you see the link I passed you on how to use pinnedpubkey? That is a file(!)
[18:22: 5] <libregee1ingkid> isaagar[m]: I updated the SHA sums to SHA256
[18:22: 1] <libregee1ingkid> jonas: I am yet to look into it. Will do in a while.
[18:22: 2] <jonas> I see far more use for a user-friendly way to check a single secure SHA* than providing 3 different SHA* one of which is insecure
[18:24: 3] <libregee1ingkid> jonas: while building the ISO we build all SHA1, SHA256 and SHA512
[18:31: 8] <jonas> that does not change my point: I believe it is more sensible to present one user-friendly way for users to securely verify their download, instead of 3 ways to do it where one of them is insecure
[20:33: (null)
[20:39: 5] <vik[m]> Does anyone see a need to have anything other than SHA 512?
[20:43: 9] <jonas> vik[m]: pinnedpubkey uses SHA256 (and not SHA512)
[20:45: 5] <jonas> SHA512 is *not* twice as secure as SHA256 - they are (as I understand it) equally secure
[20:46: 7] <jonas> they are both part of the SHA-2 family of hashes - with different offset (not different length)
[20:59: 3] <vik[m]> jonas: hmm OK, so we ought to have 256 and maybe 512
[20:59: 5] <vik[m]> But probably only one of them
[21:06: 1] <jonas> why do you consider SHA512 at all, when pinnedpubkey supports *ONLY* SHA256?
[21:07: 8] <jonas> do you have some other use cases in mind where SHA512 is relevant and SHA256 is unusable?
[21:10: 8] <vik[m]> jonas: on balance, I don't think we have a usecase for 512 at all
[21:10: 1] <vik[m]> jonas: your right that this only need sha 256
[21:35: 9] libregee1ingkid (~libregeek@111.93.193.54) left irc: Quit: leaving
[21:44: 3] libregeekingkid (~libregeek@111.93.193.54) left irc: Ping timeout: 480 seconds
[22:33: 0] libregeekingkid (~libregeek@157.119.218.21) joined #hamara.
[22:40: 1] libregee1ingkid (~libregeek@157.119.218.21) joined #hamara.
[22:50: 1] libregeekingkid (~libregeek@157.119.218.21) left irc: Ping timeout: 480 seconds
[22:50: 3] libregeekingkid (~libregeek@157.119.218.21) joined #hamara.
[23:10: 4] libregee1ingkid (~libregeek@157.119.218.21) left irc: Read error: No route to host
[23:14: 6] libregeekingkid (~libregeek@157.119.218.21) left irc: Ping timeout: 480 seconds
[00:00: 0] --- Wed Jun 20 2018