On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 09:18:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:04:00 +0200, Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > There is some other thing I do not like about the way Debian packages
> > work. Every package I install can actually completely compromise my
> > s
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:04:00 +0200, Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> There is some other thing I do not like about the way Debian packages
> work. Every package I install can actually completely compromise my
> system, because the maintainer scripts are run as root.
You can, of
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 11:04:00PM +0200, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> There is some other thing I do not like about the way Debian
> packages work. Every package I install can actually completely
> compromise my system, because the maintainer scripts are run
> as root. It would be nice if normal pack
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 09:05:59AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > You are seriously stating that is as easy to hide a trojan in the
> > source code as in the binary?
>
> Consider the fact that we've already had such a case,[1] whereas we've
> not (to my
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Martin Uecker wrote:
> You are seriously stating that is as easy to hide a trojan in the
> source code as in the binary?
Consider the fact that we've already had such a case,[1] whereas we've
not (to my knowledge) distributed a trojaned binary. I'm not sure
which is easier to
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 06:31:58PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:28:47 +0200, Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> >> But recompiling from what? If you do not get the exact same source,
> >> you have no hope of getting the same result.
>
> > I had the impre
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:28:47 +0200, Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 02:26:49AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:31:51 +0200, Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 12:25:02AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wro
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 02:26:49AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:31:51 +0200, Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 12:25:02AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> >> Just because you have _heard_ anyone diss special relativity being
> >> t
Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 06:33:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > Ah, security through blissful ignorance :) You do not
> > > actually trust the archive, or the developers, you trust the
> > > s
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:31:51 +0200, Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 12:25:02AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Just because you have _heard_ anyone diss special relativity being
>> the sole reason to believe in it is in the same ball park as
>> blissful, you k
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 12:25:02AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:45:09 +0200, Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> >> > No. I would trust the binaries if there are *no mails* from other
> >>
> >> Ah, security through blissful ignorance :) You do not actually
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:45:09 +0200, Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 06:33:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:49:17 +0200, Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>> > On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 06:20:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wro
Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 06:33:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Ah, security through blissful ignorance :) You do not
> > actually trust the archive, or the developers, you trust the
> > silence.
>
> I trust special relativity, because n
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 06:33:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:49:17 +0200, Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 06:20:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 00:04:15 +0200, Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> s
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:49:17 +0200, Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 06:20:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 00:04:15 +0200, Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>>
>> > It would be enough when just a few people are actually recomp
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 06:16:57PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Right now, it's also badly out of date in several respects and not in a
>> position to lead any charge. Manoj and I have both been eaten by our
>> respective day jobs, there are a ton of obv
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 01:03:27AM +0100, Benjamin A'Lee wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 12:04:15AM +0200, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Actually, if you do not trust the path down which a binary
> > > package flows, you can not use any informati
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 06:20:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 00:04:15 +0200, Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > It would be enough when just a few people are actually recompiling the
> > binaries and compare it to the official debian packages. Then
> > *eve
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 06:16:57PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Right now, it's also badly out of date in several respects and not in a
> position to lead any charge. Manoj and I have both been eaten by our
> respective day jobs, there are a ton of obvious fixes that should go into
> the next rele
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 03:34:35PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
>> You seem to be suggesting that policy should require this *before* it
>> becomes common practice. That's not generally how policy is crafted:
>> Debian policy generally does not prescribe packa
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 12:04:15AM +0200, Martin Uecker wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Actually, if you do not trust the path down which a binary
> > package flows, you can not use any information down that flow path to
> > test your implementation. You need to do
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 00:04:15 +0200, Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 04:56:45 +0200, Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> said:
>> Actually, if you do not trust the path down which a binary package
>> flows, you can not
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 04:56:45 +0200, Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > If policy would require the exact reproducability of binaries, then it
> > would be a policy violation.
>
>That is not how things work around here. In a case l
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 03:30:48 -0400, Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 03:34:35PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
>> You seem to be suggesting that policy should require this *before* it
>> becomes common practice. That's not generally how policy is crafted:
>> Debian policy
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 03:34:35PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> You seem to be suggesting that policy should require this *before* it
> becomes common practice. That's not generally how policy is crafted:
> Debian policy generally does not prescribe packaging practice, but
> rather describes it.
Cal
Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If policy would require the exact reproducability of binaries, then
> it would be a policy violation.
You seem to be suggesting that policy should require this *before* it
becomes common practice. That's not generally how policy is crafted:
Debian polic
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 04:56:45 +0200, Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 00:54:58 +0200
>> Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > > This has been covered before - certain upstream macros are among
>> > > many factors tha
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 00:54:58 +0200
> Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > This has been covered before - certain upstream macros are among
> > > many factors that ensure that this is unlikely. I, for one, use
> > > such macros upstream to ind
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 00:54:58 +0200
Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Martin Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This has been covered before - certain upstream macros are among
> > many factors that ensure that this is unlikely. I, for one, use su
29 matches
Mail list logo