On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 20:13 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 10:28:11AM +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
>
> > I am sorry, but I do not see a real need for special guideline for the
> > fipscheck checksums. The policy where these checksums should/will be
> > placed should be decided by the fipscheck package itself. Of course I
>
> As soon as multiple packages are affected, there should be a guideline
> to document how something needs to be done to work, e.g. if someone
> wants to package a new software that contains fips checksums.
Huh, shouldn't reading documentation in fipscheck package be
sufficient?
Of course the documentation in the fipscheck package has to be changed
to reflect the change.
--
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
Turkish proverb
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
