[ resend, I just saw even -release and -openoffice were in the mail... ]
Hi,
Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> I noticed that the latest OpenOffice.org security update in Etch
> (version 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1, which fixed DSA 1307) depends on libneon25
> whereas the previous Etch version (2.0.4.dfsg.2-5etc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
*sigh*. too late...
Typoed the email address. Forward...
- - Forwarded message from Rene Engelhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 01:43:30 +0200
From: Rene Engelhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Kevin B. McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> Because open source is all about choice.
So it's there because of a platitude?
> There might be admins using dpkg -i
> or security officers who build their local mirrors manually.
Then why don't we include md5sums and wget commands for all packages in
stable point releas
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 12:40:41AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > I don't understand why DSAs for etch include md5sums and manual upgrade
> > instructions at all. Apt can verify the checksum and gpg signature and
> > handle the upgrade after all, and
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> I don't understand why DSAs for etch include md5sums and manual upgrade
> instructions at all. Apt can verify the checksum and gpg signature and
> handle the upgrade after all, and probably more securely than the
> average user following the manual instru
Hi,
I noticed that the latest OpenOffice.org security update in Etch
(version 2.0.4.dfsg.2-7etch1, which fixed DSA 1307) depends on libneon25
whereas the previous Etch version (2.0.4.dfsg.2-5etch1) depended instead
on libneon26. Are changes in the depended package names, which require
a dist-upgr
Touko Korpela wrote:
> Debian Security Advisories currently contain MD5 checksums. As MD5 is no
> longer strong enough, maybe it should be replaced by SHA1 or SHA256?
I don't understand why DSAs for etch include md5sums and manual upgrade
instructions at all. Apt can verify the checksum and gpg s
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Touko Korpela wrote:
> Debian Security Advisories currently contain MD5 checksums. As MD5 is no
> longer strong enough, maybe it should be replaced by SHA1 or SHA256?
When combined with size information AND the fact that it needs to be a valid
.deb archive, they are probably
Debian Security Advisories currently contain MD5 checksums. As MD5 is no
longer strong enough, maybe it should be replaced by SHA1 or SHA256?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
9 matches
Mail list logo