On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 10:07:36AM +0200, Romain Francoise wrote:
> Thanks for initiating the discussion! :-)
Well, no, thank you, it's actually you who initiated the discussion :)
> One thing I've been pondering about is: are there any good reasons
> *not* to have an md5sums control file?
I fail to see any of those. I think that most of the packages without
the md5sums just happen to have been packaged before dh_md5sums was
available, and later on did not add its invocation to debian/rules.
Similarly all packages which uses cdbs for sure have the md5sums (since
cdbs invokes it).
I consider it to be one of the "new" packaging best practice which fails
to distribute "back in time" to old packages.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
(15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature