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? [EMAIL PROTECTED],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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
