Re: packages without .md5sums file?

On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Not quite. This only requires processing _installed_ > packages. And yes, there is a rtadeoff; Disk space for the archives, > transfers, and CDs' vs processing when a system's integrity is under > suspicion. The latter ought to be a rarer ev

Bug#100346: seconding this proposal

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hi, I second the (now twice) amended wording of this proposal. manoj - -- There are three kinds of people: men, women, and unix. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 0

Re: packages without .md5sums file?

>>"Brian" == Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Adam> Boot from said trusted CD, run said trusted dpkg, to Adam> calculate the md5sums of the files. Brian> Which requires scanning each and every *.deb file, in order to Brian> calculate the expected checksums of each individual file. What i

Bug#100346: seconding this proposal

On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 03:03:23PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > | The shared version must be compiled with -fPIC, and the static > > | version must not be. In other words, each *.c file will need to be > > | compiled twice. > > > > IMHO, it makes sense to drop this C reference as well, if we ar

Bug#100346: seconding this proposal

On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 03:03:23PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > | The shared version must be compiled with -fPIC, and the static version must > | not be. In other words, each *.c file will need to be compiled twice. > > IMHO, it makes sense to drop this C reference as well, if we are in > the pr

Bug#100346: seconding this proposal

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I hereby second this proposal. > > The original proposer did not supply any proposed textual changes to > policy, so I suggest the following as replacement text for the first > paragraph of 11.2: Thanks. I'm not familiar with the policy revision pr