Hi!
I'm preparing the gnupg 1.2.1 version right now, and I like the
packaging with the signed files :-), but I found a few problems in the
script:
...
I found another one:
all) prep && conf && build && install && \
strip && pkg && name=$0 text="SCRIPT" sigfile && spkg && \
finish &&
Hi,
>> 2. text=... is set, but never used.
> text is used in sigfile() to print which file must be signed:
>
> echo "$text signature need to be updated"; \
Oops, I was blind :-)
Bye
Volker
--
PGP/GPG key (ID: 0x9F8A785D) available from wwwkeys.de.pgp.net
key-fingerprint 550D F17E B
1. I had to put some variables in quotes, otherwise you get problems
with "if [ ... ]" when the variable is not set. E.g without SIG=1
Ok.
2. text=... is set, but never used.
text is used in sigfile() to print which file must be signed:
echo "$text signature need to be updated"; \
Hi,
Lapo Luchini wrote:
3 build script updated to support digital signatures
4 source package now contains original's package detached gpg signature
by the author and detached signatures on the script itself and on the
patch, signed by me
5 signatures can be checked with "./rsync-2.5.5-2.sh c
1) http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2002-10/msg00354.html
2) not a single complaint about rsync after 1.3.13 was released
I received a couple of "complaints" direct in my e-mail, I will ask them
to check wich version did they use, the report here.
--
Lapo 'Raist' Luchini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 04:39:36PM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
>On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Lapo Luchini wrote:
>> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>So, I am always against these hand waving "works for me" patches that
>>>people like to provide as in 2 below.
>>>
>>I feel the same against this kind of "hacks", t
On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> >So, I am always against these hand waving "works for me" patches that
> >people like to provide as in 2 below.
> >
> I feel the same against this kind of "hacks", that's why I asked to put
> in in "test"...in the meantime we
Christopher Faylor wrote:
So, I am always against these hand waving "works for me" patches that
people like to provide as in 2 below.
I feel the same against this kind of "hacks", that's why I asked to put
in in "test"...in the meantime we can solve the real problem.
--
Lapo 'Raist' Luchini
[
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 11:03:22AM +0100, Pavel Tsekov wrote:
>What should we do with this package ? It has been almost two weeks since
>Lapo posted it and there isn't a single comment. Is it ok to be
>uploaded ?
Well, I think my opinion is pretty consistent.
Rather than say signal delivery in c
What should we do with this package ? It has been almost two weeks since
Lapo posted it and there isn't a single comment. Is it ok to be uploaded ?
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Lapo Luchini wrote:
> Ready at the same usual address:
> http://www.lapo.it/tmp/rsync-2.5.5-2.tar.bz2
> http://www.lapo.it/tmp/r
Ready at the same usual address:
http://www.lapo.it/tmp/rsync-2.5.5-2.tar.bz2
http://www.lapo.it/tmp/rsync-2.5.5-2-src.tar.bz2
Revision changelog:
1 Compiled with gcc version 3.2 20020818 (prerelease)
2 Included Anthony Heading's patch to avoid dead child processes
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/c
11 matches
Mail list logo