On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 09:26:30AM +0100, Michael Vogt wrote: >On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 07:25:09PM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >> OK, cool. I'll admit to being curious - why does it want both >> compressed and uncompressed? Is there a worry about corruption, maybe? >[..] > >Its a bit of a idiosyncrasy of apt. It used to only check the hash >after uncompression. Nowdays it checks it at all stages. But indeed, a >nice benefit of this is that it also protects against corruption >during the uncompression.
Cool, thanks for explaining. :-) -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "This dress doesn't reverse." -- Alden Spiess -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org