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

Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?


After discussing this in IRC, we agreed that I give a short overview
about the important stuff. As I'm quite lazy, I'm quoting James Troup
for the history bits:

<elmo> was written for Ubuntu, specifically because they were activating
 data.tar.bz2 support in debs.  as a side effect it also enforced
 certain constraints on the layout of .ars simply becuase of the way the
 code was written.  this was tested on everything in ubuntu and didn't
 trip anything.  the code got ported to Debian shortly before the
 release of sarge 
<elmo> at that point, it became apparent it broke dpkg-sig signed debs.
 after various conversations, I disabled the check, because amongst
 other things making changes like that just prior to release probably
 wasn't clever.  however, I didn't sufficently comment WHY the check was
 deactivated in the code, I just said "till sarge is released" or
<elmo> which is my bad, and I apologize.  in any event, sarge has
 obviously been and gone, and the check got re-enabled as part of a
 cleanup of the code on sphor vs. cvs. 

Today, some people ranted in IRC about the fact that packages with
binary signatures were rejected again. As I believed that someone
activated these checks while knowing that they break packages with
binary signatures, I was pretty pissed off. I remembered the comment to
be something like "breaks dpkg-sig, deactivated for now", but the CVS [1]
shows that was wrong. Anyway, I want to apologize for carrying this to
-devel directly.

OK, now to the good parts: Joerg Jaspert planned to provide a better
version of the problematic check anyway (also validating the binary
signatures) and will try to finish them as soon as possible. I'll try to
be useful in respect to that, at least as useful as I can be. And now
we're all happy again. Yay!


[1]  http://cvs.debian.org/dak/jennifer?root=dak&r1=1.56&r2=1.57

BOFH #139:
UBNC (user brain not connected)

Attachment: pgpFjuZf2kkFj.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: