Re: [CryptoAPI-devel] Is keeping the patches available through theSF.net "Files" section beneficial?

[Justin C. <ju...@po...>]

Hi Herbert,

Herbert Valerio Riedel wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 18:02, Justin Clift wrote:
> > As well as the kernel patches, I feel it's worth putting the CryptoAPI's
> > util-linux patches on the site, but am not sure whether both the 2.11i
> > and 2.11n one's should be there, or just the 2.11n ones.  From memory,
> > I've been using the 2.11i ones and haven't really looked at the 2.11n
> > ones.  Would like people's opinions on this, etc.
> 
> I'm not really opposed to it, but on the other hand maybe some link to
> ftp.kernel.org for the patch-int's would be better, since there we can
> get those patches gpg-signed w/ kernel.org signature.... while on
> sourceforge it would require some more work to reliably verify the
> integrity of the sources...

I can see what you mean with that.  Sounds like the web-page needs to
have a few more links, as I don't think we can put links from the
"Files" section on the sourceforge site.

I don't understand why we can't have the the patches signed with the gpg
kernel.org signature, wherever they are for download.  Then again, I
haven't used gpg which probably explains why.  :)

<snip>
 
> regards,
> --
> Herbert Valerio Riedel       /    Phone: (EUROPE) +43-1-58801-18840
> Email: hv...@hv...       /    Finger hv...@gn... for GnuPG Public Key
> GnuPG Key Fingerprint: 7BB9 2D6C D485 CE64 4748  5F65 4981 E064 883F
> 4142
> 
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                        Name: signature.asc
>    signature.asc       Type: PGP Armored File (application/x-unknown-content-type-PGP Armored File)
>                 Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-- 
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
   - Indira Gandhi