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

Bug#223772: general: no md5sums for many packages (e.g. bc)

On 18-Dec-03, 02:43 (CST), matthias.hofer@arz.co.at wrote: 
> Do you want to tell us that the absence of the md5sums-files (those which 
> contain md5sums for every file in the package, and they _are_ absent for a 
> number of packages) should not be considered a bug, even if debsums 
> complains about this?

Amazingly enough, debsums is not policy. Lack of the md5sums file might
be a wishlist bug. If you file such a bug, and the maintainer closes it,
then the decision has been made for that particular package.

If you've been paying attention, many of us don't believe that including
per-file md5sums in packages provides any real value. Others disagree,
as sometimes happens. As the arguments have already been made in this
thread, over and over and over and over, I won't repeat them.


Steve Greenland
    The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
    system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
    world.       -- seen on the net

Reply to: