From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10239 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2012 00:46:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 10230 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Apr 2012 00:46:03 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org (HELO mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org) (204.13.248.71) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 00:45:50 +0000 Received: from pool-98-110-183-154.bstnma.fios.verizon.net ([98.110.183.154] helo=cgf.cx) by mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SOIGs-000BGC-AH for cygwin@cygwin.com; Sun, 29 Apr 2012 00:45:50 +0000 Received: from localhost (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82EE213C0C0 for ; Sat, 28 Apr 2012 20:45:49 -0400 (EDT) X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1/BjDNlc6ss1ngF74oorXUL Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 00:46:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Using Red Hat digital signing on setup.exe (was Re: Cygwin 1.7.14-2 setup.exe v2.772 broken?) Message-ID: <20120429004549.GA22599@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <4F9B1EF7.1080501@comcast.net> <4F9B6DC1.3030303@gmail.com> <4F9B77B1.9070200@gmail.com> <4F9C22B1.5000405@comcast.net> <20120428180621.GA23030@calimero.vinschen.de> <20120428205029.GB20709@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00684.txt.bz2 On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 09:57:01PM +0100, Nick Lowe wrote: >> It's bad etiquette to derail an email thread with unrelated questions. > >I certainly didn't mean to derail it, the other points were ancillary >to the implicit point that I intended to make which is that if the >executable was digitally signed, any potential corruption would >immediately be flagged by the operating system. There is no evidence that setup.exe (which is signed) was corrupt. It has/had what we call in the software industry "a bug". Digital signing is not going to solve that. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple