On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 09:30:44PM +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote: > 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? Afaik, it would be the first packaging documentation that's in a package instead of the wiki. It would probably not be indexed by search engines and not as easy reachable by people building packages for Fedora, who do not run Fedora themselves. But maybe these reasons are not that applicable for fipscheck, because there is only a limited set of packages that make use of it. Regards Till
Attachment:
pgpnTlmURSQZh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
