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

dpkg-sig support wanted?



Heya,

Today (or last night, whatever), the dak installation on ftp-master was
changed to not accept packages that include more than 3 parts, which are
usually the binary version and the compressed control and data
tarballs. This means that signed binary packages are rejected.

This is not the first time that this change to the dak scripts was
activated. We had this problem for a few days some months ago, but the
change was reverted. There was no discussion about this issue (and why
signed binary packages need to be rejected) since then. There was no
warning or indication that this check would be activated again in the
last week.

As I'm responsible for most of dpkg-sig's code (and planned to do some
more work in the next two months) I'd like to know if anyone cares about
using these binary signatures or if I can invest my time into something
that's a bit more satisfying (== non-Debian stuff). As the ftp-masters
and the dpkg maintainers seem to have no interest in the whole thing,
I'm beginning to doubt that it's sensible to work on dpkg-sig.

Marc
-- 
Fachbegriffe der Informatik - Einfach erklärt
138: OSPF
       One Single Point of Failure (Pascal Gienger)

Attachment: pgpYfjfynQf5P.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: