Re: [RFH] The need for signed packages and signed Releases (long, long)

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: [RFH] The need for signed packages and signed Releases (long, long)
From: Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <jfs@computer.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 09:45:51 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] 20021115084551.GA9063@dat.etsit.upm.es>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20021115042013.GC32282@azure.humbug.org.au>
References: <[🔎] 20021112143711.GA6850@dat.etsit.upm.es> <[🔎] 20021113134205.GB397@semistable.com> <[🔎] 20021113142540.GA6735@azure.humbug.org.au> <[🔎] 20021114114051.GA1000@semistable.com> <[🔎] 20021115042013.GC32282@azure.humbug.org.au>

On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 02:20:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > but it should be much easier to train apt to do that then train every
> > single user to do so.
> 
> apt-get source apt; vi...

Shouldn't a bug be filed first? I'll do it :) (against 'general' or 'apt')

Javi

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFH] The need for signed packages and signed Releases (long, long)
  - From: Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>

References:
- [RFH] The need for signed packages and signed Releases (long, long)
  - From: Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <jfs@computer.org>
- Re: [RFH] The need for signed packages and signed Releases (long, long)
  - From: Robert Lemmen <robertle@semistable.com>
- Re: [RFH] The need for signed packages and signed Releases (long, long)
  - From: Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
- Re: [RFH] The need for signed packages and signed Releases (long, long)
  - From: Robert Lemmen <robertle@semistable.com>
- Re: [RFH] The need for signed packages and signed Releases (long, long)
  - From: Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>

Prev by Date: Re: A Round of Removals (past tense)
Next by Date: Re: [RFH] The need for signed packages and signed Releases (long, long)
Previous by thread: Re: [RFH] The need for signed packages and signed Releases (long, long)
Next by thread: Re: [RFH] The need for signed packages and signed Releases (long, long)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread