[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: debsums for maintainer scripts

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:22:44 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> said: 

> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
>> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> > On Mon, 01 Dec 2003, christophe barbe wrote:
>> >
>> >>Before mass bug-filling, it would be necessary to make it
>> >>mandatory which unfortunately is not the case right now afaik.
>> >
>> >
>> > Deployment plan for md5sums everywhere:
>> At ~600 affected source packages, this seems hardly feasible.

> It is feasible. You just to care about it enough, and you certainly
> don't have to do it alone, or in one go.

> Otherwise, it simply won't happen, unless about 90% of the packages
> or so aready use md5sums.  At that figure, you have some changes of
> passing a policy of 'must', and you are guaranteed to get a 'should'
> to be approved IMHO.

	Before we make such a push, we should at least ensure that it
 is something we really want to do. I think locally generated
 checksums are a better solution.

There are three schools of magic.  One: State a tautology, then ring
the changes on its corollaries; that's philosophy.  Two: Record many
facts. Try to find a pattern.  Then make a wrong guess at the next
fact; that's science.  Three: Be aware that you live in a malevolent
Universe controlled by Murphy's Law, sometimes offset by Brewster's
Factor; that's engineering.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: