On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 11:38:55PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> It'd actually be good to be able to break Files in future, so that we're
> forced to verify something other than md5sum. Otherwise there will
> be code that doesn't check it properly, and that will end up being a
> security problem.
Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 11:38:55PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
It'd actually be good to be able to break Files in future, so that we're
forced to verify something other than md5sum. Otherwise there will
be code that doesn't check it properly, and that will end up bein
Hi,
as the subject says, please change dselect overrides' priority to optional.
Thanks.
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Co
On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 12:20:57PM -0700, Tim Spriggs wrote:
> Isn't sha256 a little much for a file of this size? Would it be worth
> using a smaller hash for smaller files? With both lines you are storing
> 122 bytes to uniquely identify a 355 byte file named foo. If you really
> need multiple
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 11:38:55PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > It'd actually be good to be able to break Files in future, so that we're
> > forced to verify something other than md5sum. Otherwise there will
> > be code that doesn't check it proper
On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 08:46:15PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2008, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > Hmm, that might indeed be a good idea (the point to remove the Files
> > field would be v3 then).
>
> Note it also affects *.changes files.
Yeah, but the decision for both when to
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 20:43:38 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > Quoting Raphael Hertzog ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >
> > > Is anyone reading [EMAIL PROTECTED] here that would be bothered if they
> > > received
> > > the BTS mails related to dpkg ?
> >
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 18:04:13 +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Quoting Guillem Jover ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > So let's target next release for this sunday (latish). dpkg should
> > migrate to testing today or so and there has not been major
> > regressions.
> Could you re-update the po/ director
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 14:23:03 +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 10:21:14AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > So let's target next release for this sunday (latish). dpkg should
> > migrate to testing today or so and there has not been major
> > regressions.
> >
> > I've pendi
On 11269 March 1977, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> as the subject says, please change dselect overrides' priority to optional.
Done.
--
bye Joerg
Contrary to common belief, Arch:i386 is *not* the same as Arch: any.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tro
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 12:04:26AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 18:04:13 +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > Quoting Guillem Jover ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > So let's target next release for this sunday (latish). dpkg should
> > > migrate to testing today or so and there has
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 11:18:13AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> I've finally gotten around to fixing up my support for excluding bits
> of packages as they are unpacked. It can be gotten from
> git://git.err.no/dpkg in the master branch (sorry about that, it
> should probably have gone in a sep
On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 06:15:45PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > Having it be:
> > Contents: sha256
> >28ee6a10eb280ede4b19c1b975aff5533016a26de67ba9212d51ffaea020ce34 355 foo
> > Files:
> >4bf7ff17bd9ddf3846d9065b3c594fb4 355 foo
> > or similar would be nice and non-redundant, an
Hi,
On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 11:18:13 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> I've finally gotten around to fixing up my support for excluding bits
> of packages as they are unpacked. It can be gotten from
> git://git.err.no/dpkg in the master branch (sorry about that, it
> should probably have gone in a se
On Sun, 2008-01-20 at 06:54:09 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 11:18:13 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > I've finally gotten around to fixing up my support for excluding bits
> > of packages as they are unpacked. It can be gotten from
> > git://git.err.no/dpkg in the master br
15 matches
Mail list logo
