On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Tony Mechelynck wrote: > On 03/01/12 00:11, Philip Taron wrote: > > > > I noticed for some time now that the official Vim binaries > > distributed on vim.org for Windows users aren't digitally signed. > > > > Is this due to lack of funds, lack of desire, technical > > limitations, or personal choice? > > IIUC, Bram's binaries are (outdated but) signed: see either of the > MD5 and MD5SUMS files in the ftp://ftp.vim.org/pub/vim/pc/ > directory. > > If you want an up-to-date Vim for Windows, I recommend Steve Hall's > "Vim without Cream", > http://sourceforge.net/projects/cream/files/Vim/ — that one doesn't > seem to be signed but is it Steve's or SourceForge's policy?
No policy, but I'd be curious to know what the OP believes to be practically accomplished with signed files. Perhaps we're just talking about the official binaries? Or just checksums? -- Steve Hall [ digitect dancingpaper com ] -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
