Bug#302223: apt 0.6 doesn't complain about missing release file
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 09:46:47AM +0200, Guido Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 08:47:06AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Release files have, and will continue to be, optional. Release.gpg is also
> > optional, regardless of whether Release is present. apt-get asks for
> > confirmation before installing packages from an unauthenticated source.
> It's just kind of inconsistent to complain about bad signatures when
> downloading the release and to complain about about unauthenticated
> sources at a later stage...but as long as release files are optional
> we'll have to live with that.
As long as _signed_ Release files are optional, we'll have to do it this
way, and I expect that we'll never be able to require signatures.
--
- mdz
Reply to: