Re: [RFH] The need for signed packages and signed Releases (long, long)
Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 03:24:15AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> >
> > Yes, and avoiding binary uploads by maintainers can make the system a bit
> > more transparently auditable.
>
> Not to mention making it break a lot more.
>
> Quit beating that horse, it's already been buried.
reference to thread(s), please (general time frame and applicable
list(s) should be good enough. i hate attempting blind searches through
the debian archives)
-john
Reply to:
- References:
- 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)
- Re: [RFH] The need for signed packages and signed Releases (long, long)
- From: Bernd Eckenfels <lists@lina.inka.de>
- Re: [RFH] The need for signed packages and signed Releases (long, long)
- From: Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org>