On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:22:44 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
>> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> > On Mon, 01 Dec 2003, christophe barbe wrote:
>> >
>> >>Before mass bug-filling, it would be necessary to make it
>> >>mandatory which unfortunately is not the case right now afaik.
>> >
>> >
>> > Deployment plan for md5sums everywhere:
>> At ~600 affected source packages, this seems hardly feasible.
> It is feasible. You just to care about it enough, and you certainly
> don't have to do it alone, or in one go.
> Otherwise, it simply won't happen, unless about 90% of the packages
> or so aready use md5sums. At that figure, you have some changes of
> passing a policy of 'must', and you are guaranteed to get a 'should'
> to be approved IMHO.
Before we make such a push, we should at least ensure that it
is something we really want to do. I think locally generated
checksums are a better solution.
manoj
--
There are three schools of magic. One: State a tautology, then ring
the changes on its corollaries; that's philosophy. Two: Record many
facts. Try to find a pattern. Then make a wrong guess at the next
fact; that's science. Three: Be aware that you live in a malevolent
Universe controlled by Murphy's Law, sometimes offset by Brewster's
Factor; that's engineering.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
