Re: [RFH] The need for signed packages and signed Releases (long, long)
> RTFM!!!
My point, which you missed, was that the AT-approved
solution would be more adequate if it were integrated
into the tools. Currently, it's a bit of sample bash
code. ( http://people.debian.org/~ajt/apt-check-sigs .)
> I'm surprised at the amount of people that don't read
> the mails throughly and comment on issues that have
> been beaten to death before.
Yes, it's a shame that not everyone is omniscient, or
even polite for that matter.
--
Thomas Hood
Reply to: