From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jan 1 22:28:39 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id WAA18477 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 22:28:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from nic.follonett.no (nic.follonett.no [194.198.43.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id WAA18472 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 1997 22:28:37 -0800 (PST) Received: (from uucp@localhost) by nic.follonett.no (8.8.3/8.8.3) with UUCP id HAA04931; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 07:27:15 +0100 (MET) Received: from oo7 (oo7.dimaga.com [192.0.0.65]) by dimaga.com (8.7.5/8.7.2) with SMTP id GAA11224; Thu, 2 Jan 1997 06:55:23 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970102065739.00999720@dimaga.com> X-Sender: eivind@dimaga.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 02 Jan 1997 06:57:40 +0100 To: "Mark J. Taylor" From: Eivind Eklund Subject: Re: CHECKSUM.MD5 values for 2.2-BETA (they seem to have gone missing.) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 02:25 PM 12/31/96 -0500, Mark J Taylor wrote: > >I remember several years back that people were complaining about how long >it takes to do a checksum during the installation, so putting it back in >would probably be a bad idea. "Several years" probably means a speed increase an order of magnitude. I'm not certain this would be a problem :) >However, putting the MD5 checksums in and optionally NOT using them >during installation sounds like a good idea (it would be a nice little >security feture, put into sysinstall's "options" screen). I agree. They should be enabled by default. Do these checksums check what is actually on the disk after install, or just the tarballs that have been downloaded? I would consider both useful. Eivind Eklund / perhaps@yes.no / http://maybe.yes.no/perhaps/