On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 13:24 +0200, Ralf Jung wrote: > Hi, > > > So this is a different bug. > > > > I've unmerged and reopened #568008 which refers to padlock_sha. > Thanks! I already wondered why some bugs referred to aes and some for sha, but > assumed they were the same as they were merged. > > So the sha problem remains. Does "this is safe to ignore" apply to this issue > as well? Yes, I believe so. Ben.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part