> a flag such as `--no-verify-checksums` sounds a very bad idea
btw we don't verify checksums for any downloaded binaries, but it's probably a
good idea to do so:
https://code.launchpad.net/~ddstreet/ubuntu-dev-tools/+git/ubuntu-dev-tools/+merge/377952
--
You received this bug notification
ack, let's see what Colin has, unassigning myself.
** Changed in: ubuntu-dev-tools (Ubuntu)
Assignee: Dan Streetman (ddstreet) => (unassigned)
** Changed in: ubuntu-dev-tools (Ubuntu)
Status: In Progress => Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020, 1:55 pm Dan Streetman,
wrote:
> > I've seen such packages uploaded last year too
>
> that's unfortunate and quite bad.
>
Well, it's a feature, although one that does create confusion in many
situations. So it's probably good that very few people know of it ^^
I'd still
> I've seen such packages uploaded last year too
that's unfortunate and quite bad.
> And a flag such as `--no-verify-checksums` sounds a very bad idea to
have to me.
ok i removed that patch; the MR still resolves this bug.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
It's not just jaunty. I've seen such packages uploaded last year too.
Though I must say it's so rare that I forgot such packages existed…
And a flag such as `--no-verify-checksums` sounds a very bad idea to
have to me.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of MOTU,
