Hi Guillem and everybody, I agree with your suggestions.
If there are no further comments I will submit the media type after correcting the points below. Have a nice day, -- Charles Le Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 03:22:38AM +0100, Guillem Jover a écrit : > > This still seems confusing, “Debian format archive” could also be > understood as referring to .debs, maybe something like “Debian format > repositories”? > > Ian's suggestion clarifies, but it's not entirely accurate because the > repositories can be served with protocols other than http/ftp. > > > authenticated with a trusted cryptographic key (see the manual page of > > apt-secure for details). As a lesser alternative for cases where APT tools > > are > > not available, the package should be downloaded with secured protocols such > > as > > HTTPS. There also exists a mechanism for signing packages directly (called > > ‘debsigs’), but it is not deployed. > > This still talks about APT as if it was the only frontend available, > what about “… cases where secure package manager frontends (such as APT, > cupt, etc.) are not available, …”? > > > However, creating a Debian binary package requires the Debian tools. > > I don't agree with this wording. Using dpkg-deb to create Debian binary > packages should be recommended very strongly, but it should not be > considered a requirement. > > > File extension(s): > > deb > > Maybe udeb should also be mentioned here? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
