On Dec 5, 2007, at 7:46 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Who would sign the binaries?
Would each package maintainer sign his own packages?
Does Theo have to sign each package?
I don't see a problem in having signatures for software but I do see
problems in creating and maintaining an infrastructure for these
signatures.
And what would you gain?
What guarantees would these signatures give you?
You can verify package consistency with md5 sums.
If you are paranoid, why would you trust the devs? You would just
compile
the software yourself. But only after reading each line of code of
course.
Floor Terra
| Adrian Bunk | Re: Linux 2.6.21 |
| Linus Torvalds | Linux 2.6.21-rc2 |
| WANG Cong | [-mm Patch] UML: fix a building error |
| Roland McGrath | Re: [PATCH 0/5] ftrace: to kill a daemon |
git: | |
| Natalie Protasevich | [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Patrick McHardy | Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3) |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Theodore Ts'o | Re: cc1 fails silently |
| Michael Nolan | Power routines on notebook cause kernel panic |
| Marc Peters | v 0.11 boot disk problem |
| Dave `geek' Gymer | WARNING (was Re: New afio release) |
