On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:36:16 +0100, Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Before we make such a push, we should at least ensure that it is
>> something we really want to do. I think locally generated checksums
>> are a better solution.
> To me, the main use of md5sums seems to be verifying nothing bad (as
> in accident, not malicious manipulation) happened to the extracted
> files. md5sums included in the packages do that even earlier than
> those generated.
What kind of accident? Files lost? We already have a list of
files for files being deleted, and having hashes of the files helps
not -- you need to download the deb to get them back Permissions
changed or owner changed? chesum hashes do not help there. How often
have you had a mass corruption as an accident? What exactly is the
use case we are solving here?
manoj
--
And do you not think that each of you women is an Eve? The judgment
of God upon your sex endures today; and with it invariably endures
your position of criminal at the bar of justice. Tertullian,
second-century Christian writer, misogynist
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
