On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 07:50:11PM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote:
> Missed that mail. I remember the discussion on what should checksecurity
> include though. Please notice I have include many of the modules we wanted
> in Tiger.
It may have been a private mail; the way I rememb
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 06:27:33PM +0100, Steve Kemp wrote:
>
> I agreed to take over this checksecurity package, when the maintain
> finds the time to split it out from cron. There was some discussion
> about it recently upon debian-devel.
Missed that mail. I remember the discussion on what
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 07:16:01PM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote:
> That's what Tiger calls 'signatures'. It's pretty easy to do at the moment,
> but I have not updated signatures for Debian for quite some time. If you
> intend to keep a database you also have to consider that for
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 01:52:18PM +0100, Steve Kemp wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 09:05:58AM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a
> wrote:
>
> > It doesn't tackle the issue of dpkg _not_ storing filesystem permissions.
> > This makes it not feasible to easily recover the system after a 'chm
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 09:05:58AM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote:
> It doesn't tackle the issue of dpkg _not_ storing filesystem permissions.
> This makes it not feasible to easily recover the system after a 'chmod -R
> go-rwx /' besides reinstalling all the packages (that's why I p
On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 01:08:00PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-04-20 at 12:16, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
>
> > Which, IMHO should be required by now. IMHO it's bad enough that dpkg does
> > not handle this itself (#155799 and, better, #187019).
>
> And even better than
On Sun, 2003-04-20 at 12:16, Javier FernÃndez-Sanguino PeÃa wrote:
> Which, IMHO should be required by now. IMHO it's bad enough that dpkg does
> not handle this itself (#155799 and, better, #187019).
And even better than both of those, #155676.
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 02:11:49PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 01:14:04PM +0200, Stephane Jourdois wrote:
> > I just noticed that not all packages in sid do provide md5 checksums
> > for the files they contains.
> >
> > What should be done a
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 01:14:04PM +0200, Stephane Jourdois wrote:
> I just noticed that not all packages in sid do provide md5 checksums
> for the files they contains.
>
> What should be done against this ? Shall we file bugreports against
> all packages that we can found, or
Hello all,
I just noticed that not all packages in sid do provide md5 checksums
for the files they contains.
What should be done against this ? Shall we file bugreports against
all packages that we can found, or perhaps lintian should check this ?
Thanks,
--
/// Stephane Jourdois
10 matches
Mail list logo
