On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 08:52:29PM +0200, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: > On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 11:50:35AM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 09:00:04AM +0200, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > was heard to say: > > > Additionally, aptitude should be more verbose in _what_ it doesn't > > > like with the packages or their signatures. Simply saying "untrusted > > > versions will be installed" isn't much help. > > > > What does apt-get do about this part? > > I suspect that apt-get is equally bad, but cannot verify this since > the host in question is testing packagediffs, and thus has a patched > aptitude for URL rewriting, but original apt-get. So I reckon that > apt-get doesn't currently work on that host.
The reason I asked is that by the time that aptitude (or apt-get) gets around to installing packages, all that's left of the trust check is a flag saying that the package source isn't trusted. So I thought maybe apt-get knew something I didn't :-). Daniel
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
