On Dec 7, 2007 3:30 PM, Scott Kitterman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 07 December 2007 16:17, Justin Dugger wrote:
>
> > On Dec 7, 2007 11:50 AM, John Dong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 10:33:57AM +0100, Gonz Hauser wrote:
> > > > Hi!
> > > >
> > > > I attached
On Friday 07 December 2007 16:17, Justin Dugger wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2007 11:50 AM, John Dong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 10:33:57AM +0100, Gonz Hauser wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > I attached a patch to let the user install flash even if md5sums do not
> > > match. This w
Perhaps simply having a list of acceptable hashes would be okay?
Justin Dugger
On Dec 7, 2007 11:50 AM, John Dong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I disagree with patches of this nature. We should not be implying a security
> checksum is something to feel good about when it passes and ignore when it
I disagree with patches of this nature. We should not be implying a security
checksum is something to feel good about when it passes and ignore when it
doesn't.
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 10:33:57AM +0100, Gonz Hauser wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I attached a patch to let the user install flash even if md5sums d
Hi!
I attached a patch to let the user install flash even if md5sums do not
match. This was the case when Adobe released their new version a few
days ago.
Gonz
diff -ur flashplugin-nonfree-9.0.48.0.2+really0ubuntu12/debian/changelog flashplugin-nonfree-9.0.48.0.2+really0ubuntu13/debian/chang
