From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20532 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2002 23:44:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 20525 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2002 23:44:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO marta.kurtwerks.com) (151.201.226.57) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 24 Apr 2002 23:44:25 -0000 Received: (from kwall@localhost) by marta.kurtwerks.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) id g3ONiHj00350 for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 19:44:17 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 19:03:00 -0000 From: Kurt Wall To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GCC 3.1 prerelease Message-ID: <20020424194417.V23431@marta> References: <64050000.1019666102@gandalf.codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from jsm28@cam.ac.uk on Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 06:56:39PM +0100 X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01272.txt.bz2 [CCs trimmed] Scribbling feverishly on April 24, Joseph S. Myers managed to emit: > On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > > No, it's a matter of the release script not generating either. Probably > > the md5 checksums lying around with the gzips are out of date. > > > > I'll try to add this to the release script. > > The MD5 sums are I think generated by some process that runs on > gcc.gnu.org and generates them for new FTP files. I don't know the > details - this isn't documented at > . Ah. Revaming the autogeneration of md5 sums apparently a long-standing TODO item: http://sources.redhat.com/sourceware/TODO.txt > It would be better for actual releases to be cryptographically signed. Agreed, although I realize my opinion carries little weight here. Kurt -- I'm defending her honor, which is more than she ever did.