On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 09:09:55PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Can you elaborate on the advantage of letting everyone generate their own
> > checksums for the installed files? Seems to me a waste of cpu cycles.
>
> We process all the data in a pipe anyw
On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 07:03:22PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Previously Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > Wouldn't it be nice if each general file management tool
> > > (command line or text-based or graphical file manager)
> > > supports 64 bit fi
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Can you elaborate on the advantage of letting everyone generate their own
> > checksums for the installed files? Seems to me a waste of cpu cycles.
>
> We process all the data in a pipe anyway so calculating the
Previously Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Can you elaborate on the advantage of letting everyone generate their own
> checksums for the installed files? Seems to me a waste of cpu cycles.
We process all the data in a pipe anyway so calculating the checksum
takes no effort. Benefits are we don't need t
On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 01:07:37PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> No. .md5sums are the wrong approach for this. The right approach is
> a combination of signing packages themselves, and dpkg generating (multiple)
> checksums on the fly when installing a packages. The signing part is
> implemented
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Previously Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be nice if each general file management tool
> > (command line or text-based or graphical file manager)
> > supports 64 bit files (with 64 bit inode values or size
> > greater than 2 GB) even on 32 bit
Previously Florian Weimer wrote:
> Wouldn't it be nice if each general file management tool
> (command line or text-based or graphical file manager)
> supports 64 bit files (with 64 bit inode values or size
> greater than 2 GB) even on 32 bit architectures?
Sure. Just recompile them with glibc2.2
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.6.0
Severity: wishlist
Wouldn't it be nice if each general file management tool
(command line or text-based or graphical file manager)
supports 64 bit files (with 64 bit inode values or size
greater than 2 GB) even on 32 bit architectures?
For ordinary applicat
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ATTN:
Dear Sir,
INVESTMENT PROPOSAL OF FIFTY MILLION US DOLLARS
US$50,000,000 IN YOUR COMPANY
I am pleased to write you in order to inform you of my
good intention to invest or form a joint partnership
Business with you. I am one of the Directors in
Security and Exch
Previously Massimo Dal Zotto wrote:
> Is this allowed by policy?
Yes.
> And if not should we change the policy and require that every package have
> the .md5sums file?
No. .md5sums are the wrong approach for this. The right approach is
a combination of signing packages themselves, and dpkg gener
Hi,
I have noticed that many packages don't have the .md5sums file, for
example http://http.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/a/ae/ae_962-30_i386.deb.
Is this allowed by policy?
And if not should we change the policy and require that every package have
the .md5sums file?
--
Massimo Dal Zotto
+--
11 matches
Mail list logo
