Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why should anyone jump through hoops in order to accomodate just one
> software package, out of thousands out there?
To make the package maintenance system more flexible and thorough?
> So, is it now open season for thousands of developments invent thousands
> of different features which are required to verify the integrity of their
> packages, and then insist that a single package maintenance tool satisfy
> all of them?
Um, no. The package maintenance tool provides the *hook*; it executes a
script written by the *package maintainer* included in the *package file*
that does any custom verification of the installed package. That's the
whole point -- the package maintainer can write a script included in the
package file to do arbitrary checking, the package maintaintenance tool
only needs to know how to execute the script if it exists.
> That is downright silly.
Yes, it is, which is why I didn't suggest it.
[...]
> Uh, huh... And would you care to volunteer to write the code which will
> know the location of the CD-ROM device on every UNIX system out there,
> in addition to knowing the location of the original binaries that are
> shipped with every UNIX distribution out there?
...
No, because the code is already written -- the Redhat package manager
already has the capability to check the on-disk files against the copies
on the CD-ROM. This is what spawned the whole thread in the first place,
because people were complaining that qmail's embedded uids foiled Redhat's
checksum binary verification methods. This is not some pie-in-the-sky
suggestion for the base qmail tarball from koobera, or every distribution
out there -- this is specific to Redhat's package manager, which is what
the discussion was about.
You seem to have mistaken me for someone whom you have a fundamental
disagreement with, as you've sent a pointless knee-jerk zero-content
reply with excessive sarcasm that makes it clear that (a) you didn't
comprehend what I was attempting to communicate before you responded,
or (b) you haven't been keeping up with the thread. Either way,
if you're not interested in being constructive, please don't bother
responding. HAND.
--
shame is no weapon against the shameless. -- john perry barlow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (michael handler)
