Re: debsums for maintainer scripts
On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:34:10 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis <email@example.com> said:
> On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 11:11, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> That is but one optimization: we already are suffering from archive
>> bloat, what about the disk and bandwidth cost of carrying around
>> the sigs? And since one rarely needs the md5sums anyway, what is
>> so wrong with checking against the .deb when needed?
> I just took an md5sum of every file on my system. Including things
> like /var and /home that aren't part of packages. It's 13M,
> uncompressed. Compressed, it's 3.5M.
> If we were really worried about archive size, an md5sum is 16
> octets. It's hard to see that mattering to overall archive size.
I am (probably) getting a Zaurus for christmas this year. I
would like to run Debian on it. You think that the PDA has gobs of
disk space to throw around?
>> > Its also a warm feeling to run debsums to see the broken memory
>> > chip one just replaced with a working one has not caused any
>> > bit-changes in the installed files. If the checksums were created
>> > at the same system, one has to get them from somewhere else, so
>> > there is little sense in having them generated at all.
>> A warm fuzzy feeling, however, is to be distrusted when dealing
>> with security and/or system integrity checking.
> Have you ever met any bit changes that defeat md5? Didn't think so.
Have you met any bit changes that defeated checksums
generated and stored on the same system? Don't think so.
No one can feel as helpless as the owner of a sick goldfish.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.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