Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> Installation of authenticated binaries is a good idea. Its a
> way of ensuring that you are installing the binary that your
> distribution intended you to install. It reduces the likelihood
> of you and others installing compromised software.
Well, I'm happy to follow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Well, I'm happy to follow advice in this matter. Even so, I'm still
> curious about unauthenticated software. What's the rationale in producing
> it?
The warning you saw can happen in two situations:
- The software was signed, but you don't have the part of the
k
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Erik de Castro Lopo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >LANG=
>> >sudo apt-get update
>>
>> Well, I did, although I like to know what I'm doing. The sudo etc I
>> understand, but what's LANG= please?
>
> Did this then allow you to install the software without hav
On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 08:26 +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
> > Well, I did, although I like to know what I'm doing. The sudo etc I
> > understand, but what's LANG= please?
>
> Did this then allow you to install the software without having to
> install software that was un-authenticated? If so,
Yes, I have always thought that there is something broken in the
mirror process.
My guess is that the mirror process works alphabettically through the
tree, hence .../ubuntu/dists//main//Packages.* gets
mirrored before .../ubuntu/pool/main//*.deb does. Hence there is
a pretty good chance you will
On Thu, May 22, 2008, Martin Visser wrote:
> My guess is that the mirror process works alphabettically through the
> tree, hence .../ubuntu/dists/ /main/ /Packages.* gets
> mirrored before .../ubuntu/pool/main/ /*.deb does. Hence there is
> a pretty good chance you will be trying to update packages
