| 1 |
> >>> Please: When you run tools which break checksums/dates of the database, |
| 2 |
> >>> give the user the possibility to decide whether he really wants this. |
| 3 |
> >> Good point, I didn't realize that. However, I'd rather fix the tool (for |
| 4 |
> >> example to update the portage database). |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> On the other hand, I really wonder how useful the checksums in portage |
| 7 |
> db really are. It includes config files which are frequently modified. |
| 8 |
> It also doesn't include config files the administrator has to create. So |
| 9 |
> for example for verifying system integrity is seems useless to me. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I'd expect only a limited group of users caring about the checksum |
| 12 |
> database, and the majority of affected users caring about the update to |
| 13 |
> "just work" (which running lafilefixer --just-fixit automatically would |
| 14 |
> buy us). |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
http://trac.mcs.anl.gov/projects/bcfg2/wiki/Gentoo |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Section "Package Verification Issues" contains one example of why checksums should be |
| 19 |
consistent. |
Archives