search for: current_lin

Hello, Is this the proper place to suggest an enhancement for the stock dovecot package ? The enhancement would be the following: For the time being, the dovecotpw utility offers a standardised way to interactively encode a user password in a certain scheme, say: dovecotpw -s CRYPT Enter new passord: Re-enter new password: etc. Given a *valid* /etc/imap.passwd file (passwd-file

...houldn't be using it. >> >> CentOS 7 is all I build packages for. >> > > In your .rpmmacros file .. try setting: > > _binary_filedigest_algorithm SHA256 > > or from the command line: > > rpm --define '_binary_filedigest_algorithm SHA256' <current_line> > > ===== > > if some some reason it does not like the SAH256 value .. try 8 instead. So: > > rpm --define '_binary_filedigest_algorithm 8' > > or in .rpmmacros: > > _binary_filedigest_algorithm 8 > There is another one as well: --define "...

...e.last_row first_column = parsed_file.first_column last_column = parsed_file.last_column #logger.info "#### Total Rows:#{last_row}, first_row:#{first_row}, last_row:#{last_row}, first_column:#{first_column}, last_column:#{last_column}" first_row.upto(last_row) do |current_line| # Stuff .... end </code> Thanks -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF...

hi, I noticed that RPM packages I sign use SHA1 Signature : RSA/SHA1, Fri 08 Jan 2016 10:50:58 AM PST, Key ID ad3b591d147abf59 Signatures from CentOS 7 use SHA256 Signature : RSA/SHA256, Wed 06 Jan 2016 08:54:58 AM PST, Key ID 24c6a8a7f4a80eb5 I'm trying to find where / how to use sha256 when I sign packages but I am not having much luck. Closest I have found is this :

...packages for. >>>> >>> >>> In your .rpmmacros file .. try setting: >>> >>> _binary_filedigest_algorithm SHA256 >>> >>> or from the command line: >>> >>> rpm --define '_binary_filedigest_algorithm SHA256' <current_line> >>> >>> ===== >>> >>> if some some reason it does not like the SAH256 value .. try 8 instead. So: >>> >>> rpm --define '_binary_filedigest_algorithm 8' >>> >>> or in .rpmmacros: >>> >>> _binary_f...

...gt;>> CentOS 7 is all I build packages for. >>> >> >> In your .rpmmacros file .. try setting: >> >> _binary_filedigest_algorithm SHA256 >> >> or from the command line: >> >> rpm --define '_binary_filedigest_algorithm SHA256' <current_line> >> >> ===== >> >> if some some reason it does not like the SAH256 value .. try 8 instead. So: >> >> rpm --define '_binary_filedigest_algorithm 8' >> >> or in .rpmmacros: >> >> _binary_filedigest_algorithm 8 >> > &gt...

...stumbled upon yet? > > SHA1 is broken. I shouldn't be using it. > > CentOS 7 is all I build packages for. > In your .rpmmacros file .. try setting: _binary_filedigest_algorithm SHA256 or from the command line: rpm --define '_binary_filedigest_algorithm SHA256' <current_line> ===== if some some reason it does not like the SAH256 value .. try 8 instead. So: rpm --define '_binary_filedigest_algorithm 8' or in .rpmmacros: _binary_filedigest_algorithm 8 Thanks, Johnny Hughes -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed......

...gt;>>> >>>> In your .rpmmacros file .. try setting: >>>> >>>> _binary_filedigest_algorithm SHA256 >>>> >>>> or from the command line: >>>> >>>> rpm --define '_binary_filedigest_algorithm SHA256' <current_line> >>>> >>>> ===== >>>> >>>> if some some reason it does not like the SAH256 value .. try 8 instead. So: >>>> >>>> rpm --define '_binary_filedigest_algorithm 8' >>>> >>>> or in .rpmmacros: &gt...

...>> In your .rpmmacros file .. try setting: >>>>> >>>>> _binary_filedigest_algorithm SHA256 >>>>> >>>>> or from the command line: >>>>> >>>>> rpm --define '_binary_filedigest_algorithm SHA256' <current_line> >>>>> >>>>> ===== >>>>> >>>>> if some some reason it does not like the SAH256 value .. try 8 >>>>> instead. So: >>>>> >>>>> rpm --define '_binary_filedigest_algorithm 8' >>&g...

I'm using caret to assess classifier performance (and it's great!). However, I've found that my results differ between R2.* and R3.* - reported accuracies are reduced dramatically. I suspect that a code change to kernlab ksvm may be responsible (see version 5.16-24 here: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/caret/news.html). I get very different results between caret_5.15-61 +