On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 01:08:11PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
I use this too, and I even have a burner.
A loopback ISO mount is always faster than the real CD.
If this is not going to be possible anymore, we lose *valuable* functionality.
Hope I'm not too late here, but I use this
Hello,
- works with dpkg-multicd and apt-cdrom
It's difficult to check automatically for those. But we'd need such a
tool for sure.
I think checking this could be done automatically and the integration of
this step into debian-cd would be a very good thing...
On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, Philip Charles wrote:
A CD (or iso image) is essentially one file and the integrity of this can
be verified by a single signed checksum.
No, that is such an oversimplification and what you have described of the
HURD
On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, Attila Nagy wrote:
Hello,
I have used this myself. It is a good way to test an image. It is also
used by people who have borrowed CDs and do not have a burner.
I think a validity checking part in debian-cd would be very nice.
BTW, what's the correct way to
Le Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 08:15:49PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe écrivait:
It will add them both and it becomes trivial for someone to defeat the
security mechanisms.
Why ?
What do you mean 'Why?' Put the bad files in the insecure space and
let-er-rip.
I can't understand that. apt know
Le Sun, Apr 15, 2001 at 12:18:26AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe écrivait:
1) Make the empty file dists/woody/aptignr
- This tells apt-cdrom that the CD is foobar'd below this directory
and it should just ignore it.
Does this feature already exist ? If not, please consider calling it
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Philip Charles wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
No more than all the other ugly things that have been suggested, and this
only affects the 3 people silly enough to loopback mount ISO's and try to
use APT on them.
I have used this myself. It is a
On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Philip Charles wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
No more than all the other ugly things that have been suggested, and this
only affects the 3 people silly enough to loopback mount ISO's and try to
use
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
b) Use verbatim package files and call them 'Packages.something'
- Everyone can make CD set, and we still have end-to-end security
- apt file:/../ does not work properly on those discs
e)
I think that we are trying to turn apples into oranges. The security of
CDs is relatively simple, that of a mirror more complex and they need to
be approached differently.
A mirror can have one corrupt or sabotaged file amongst 2-3 and there
needs to be a way of detecting this. The
Le Sun, Apr 15, 2001 at 12:27:19AM +1000, Anthony Towns écrivait:
Instead of changing the name of the Packages file, how about we try something
completely different?
dists/ woody-secured/
[...]
That should be pretty easy to do right now, and shouldn't cause any
problems to anyone,
On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 06:05:04PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Le Sun, Apr 15, 2001 at 12:27:19AM +1000, Anthony Towns ?crivait:
Instead of changing the name of the Packages file, how about we try something
completely different?
dists/ woody-secured/
[...]
That should be pretty easy
On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 11:14:30PM +, Philip Charles wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
you can tell it to read Packages.cd directly
I don't want that, it's a hack. :)
No more than all the other ugly things that have been suggested, and this
only
On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
Nope, packages fails verification and APT will stop without using the
file, ditto for ftp, http, etc.
EVERY access method up to current potato APT will work nicely with this. If
woody/sid APT suddenly stops working correctly, thats a grave bug in
On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, Philip Charles wrote:
A CD (or iso image) is essentially one file and the integrity of this can
be verified by a single signed checksum.
No, that is such an oversimplification and what you have described of the
HURD CD's prooves that.
CD's may in fact contain content
Le Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 02:05:35PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe écrivait:
How exactly do you propose that apt-cdrom determine that these two random
trees of stuff are actually the same tree of stuff? Current apt-cdrom will
not properly handle CD's made like this, so you've broke that.
Explain us
Hello,
I have used this myself. It is a good way to test an image. It is also
used by people who have borrowed CDs and do not have a burner.
I think a validity checking part in debian-cd would be very nice.
BTW, what's the correct way to check an ISO made with the debian-cd
script?
And
On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Le Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 02:05:35PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe crivait:
How exactly do you propose that apt-cdrom determine that these two random
trees of stuff are actually the same tree of stuff? Current apt-cdrom will
not properly handle CD's
On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Having more than one tree means it will be detected more than once and
that certianly is not desirable, any may cause problems, like it asking
for the disks in a non-ideal order, or something equally lame.
May or will cause problem ?
I can't
On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 08:15:49PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Having more than one tree means it will be detected more than once and
that certianly is not desirable, any may cause problems, like it asking
for the disks in a non-ideal order,
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Philip Charles wrote:
Apt-cdrom does not work. dselect works if the file system is strangely
modified. apt will work if the CD is copied to a separate partition.
Hurd even had apt-cdrom? The ancient version that was
On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 06:28:24AM +, Philip Charles wrote:
I don't see any additions to the CD set from another site being a concern
at all, as long as they are properly put in a seperate directory.
If you tie the security too tightly to CD installation custom Debian CD
builders will
Le Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 10:42:33PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe écrivait:
It works because you got lucky, you had a CD that was fortunately
constructed properly. It is not supported, and if it does not work, I
totally don't care.
Of course, the CDs are constructed properly ! I'm in charge of
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Of course, the CDs are constructed properly ! I'm in charge of maintaining
debian-cd so that it builds "properly constructed" CDs ...
I don't see why I need to change it to something where CDs are no more
properly constructed !
/me grumbles :
On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 10:42:33PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
Or if you ask particularly nice I might extend the sources.list syntax so
you can tell it to read Packages.cd directly
What would happen if you made apt stat every .deb in a file:// url too,
on apt-get update, say, and trimmed
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
It works because you got lucky, you had a CD that was fortunately
constructed properly. It is not supported, and if it does not work, I
totally don't care.
Of course, the CDs are constructed properly ! I'm in charge of maintaining
debian-cd
Le Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 02:23:41PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe écrivait:
Because no matter what you do your CD will be invalid in some form, and
using a verbatim Packages file is the least pain.
That's the first time I see Debian willing to accept "invalid" CDs instead
of designing cleanly the
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
you can tell it to read Packages.cd directly
I don't want that, it's a hack. :)
No more than all the other ugly things that have been suggested, and this
only affects the 3 people silly enough to loopback mount ISO's and try to
use APT
Le Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 03:20:07PM +1000, Anthony Towns écrivait:
debootstrap uses the Release file to work out what Packages files and such
to download
Many of the files listed in the Release file simply don't exist on all
CDs.
(and was going to use the md5sums in it to ensure the Packages
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
2a) Check that the md5sums of the Packages-signed.gz and
Sources-signed.gz files you have match the md5sums listed
in the Release file
2b) Check that every package listed in each Packages.gz and
Sources.gz
Le Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 02:20:49AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe écrivait:
I think the best suggestion was to have a Packages.cd which could be used
Packages.cd files exists but exists only for dpkg-multicd which is a
dselect method. And it's quite ugly since those files lists all the
packages
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
2a) Check that the md5sums of the Packages-signed.gz and
Sources-signed.gz files you have match the md5sums listed
in the Release file
2b) Check that every package listed in
On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 08:58:30AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
(and was going to use the md5sums in it to ensure the Packages
file wasn't corrupt, too :-/)
Duh. Couldn't we generate new Release files and sign them again ?
Wouldn't you trust the debian-cd build ?
Not if I can avoid it. If
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Le Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 02:20:49AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe crivait:
I think the best suggestion was to have a Packages.cd which could be used
Packages.cd files exists but exists only for dpkg-multicd which is a
dselect method. And it's quite
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Philip Charles wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
So I think we should continue to generate _correct_ Packages files for
each CD, and solve the "signing issue" using some other method.
I repeat my earlier suggestion. Sign md5sums.gz, this is supposed
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
**
Why should the normal Packages file be named differently and not the new
files that we are introducing ?
People who do that are more likely to copy the entire CD set to the hard
disk so they do in fact have a complete mirror, and should
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
APT does not support that, if it does not work then too bad, I don't care.
:P
Apt always supported that. If I put my CD and mount it on /cdrom and
use "deb file:/cdrom/debian woody main contrib non-free" in sources.list,
it does work !
It
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Philip Charles wrote:
With the Hurd CDs it is even worse. The file structure on the CDs has
only a passing resemblance to any file system found on a Debian CD or
mirror past or present. It has to be like that or it will not work.
I don't even think I want to know..
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Philip Charles wrote:
With the Hurd CDs it is even worse. The file structure on the CDs has
only a passing resemblance to any file system found on a Debian CD or
mirror past or present. It has to be like that or it
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Philip Charles wrote:
Apt-cdrom does not work. dselect works if the file system is strangely
modified. apt will work if the CD is copied to a separate partition.
Hurd even had apt-cdrom? The ancient version that was packaged sure didn't
include it, so I'm not amazed if
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
reassign 93612 debian-cd
Bug#93612: Support for new archive structure
Bug reassigned from package `cdimage.debian.org' to `debian-cd'.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian
Jason: wassup with apt-cdrom and dists/woody/Release and such?
On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 09:45:58AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Le Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 01:05:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns crivait:
For this to work, the Release and Release.gpg files should be verbatim
This is not a problem, we
IMHO is would be easier to include a signed version of md5sums.gz on each
CD. This would still mean the the integrity of the packages could be
checked with confidence and would enable the detection of foreign
packages.
Someone might want to write a script that would automate the process.
Phil.
Le Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 11:15:34AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo écrivait:
If you all on the debian-cd list could prioritize the issues which are
preventing debootstrap from working (the one I know about is the
dists/woody/Release file) that would be great. Right now I can't do
testing using woody
On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 06:01:30PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
Le Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 11:15:34AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo crivait:
If you all on the debian-cd list could prioritize the issues which are
preventing debootstrap from working (the one I know about is the
dists/woody/Release
45 matches
Mail list logo
