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

Bug#132767: acknowledged by developer (Reviewing policy bugs)

On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 12:48:06AM -0500, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
>         Perusuant to my message earlier, there are the first set of
>   pending bug reports.

what message earlier?

>      * #132767: debsum support should be mandatory
>        Package: debian-policy; Reported by: Matthew Wilcox
>        <willy@debian.org>; 212 days old.
> 	From the report itself:
>               > All rpm-based systems support rpm --verify.  Having
>               > debsums support optional makes debian an inferior
>               > distribution in this aspect.  Making DEBIAN/md5sums
>               > required rather than optional would rectify this
>               > situation.
>               debsums is a poor and incomplete solution. The best
>               thing is to have dpkg compute+store the same data when
>               the package is unpacked on the fly. Then we don't bloat
>               the archive, the feature can be turned on/off, etc.
>  From the debsums man page:
>        DPkg::Post=E2=80=90Invoke {
>            "debsums =E2=80=90=E2=80=90generate=3Dnocheck =E2=80=90sp /var/c=
> ache/apt/archives";
>        };
>              /etc/apt/apt.conf fragment to generate missing checksums
>              after upgrade/install.
> 	I am going to close this report.

can you not use unprintably-encoded mime shite?  it's hard to read.

Revolutions do not require corporate support.

Reply to: