Re: [RFH] The need for signed packages and signed Releases (long, long)
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 05:31:32PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Notably, a decent signature system (which we can implement now, and I
> think we *are*) radically reduces the dependency on lots of other
> computers.
Yes, and avoiding binary uploads by maintainers can make the system a bit
more transparently auditable.
Greetings
Bernd
Reply to:
- 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: Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
- Re: [RFH] The need for signed packages and signed Releases (long, long)
- From: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>
- 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: Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org>
- Re: [RFH] The need for signed packages and signed Releases (long, long)
- From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
- Re: [RFH] The need for signed packages and signed Releases (long, long)
- From: tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
- Re: [RFH] The need for signed packages and signed Releases (long, long)
- From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
- Re: [RFH] The need for signed packages and signed Releases (long, long)
- From: tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)