Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla
From: Charles Duffy <cduffy@spamcop.net>
To: "Alexey N. Solofnenko" <A.Solofnenko@mdl.com>
In-Reply-To: <419A6857.2030701@mdl.com>
References: <20041116204346.GA4854@vagabond>  <419A6857.2030701@mdl.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:57:37 -0600
Message-Id: <1100638657.15201.175.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
Precedence: list
Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1164
Lines: 29
On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 12:51 -0800, Alexey N. Solofnenko wrote:
> Yes to what? Both approaches are functionally equivalent. Darcs only 
> checks signatures on unsafe mails, but other protocols should check 
> authenticity themselves (anonymous users should not be able to check 
> anything in).

Not remotely equivalent. Arch allows me to determine whether my archive
has been modified if the server I host it on has been cracked and
tampered with. Darcs has no such mechanism. (See the case where the
Linux CVS tree mirroring its BK repository was maliciously tampered with
to insert a vulnerability; Arch would have made this detectable, whereas
Darcs has no handling for this case).

> For me a Windows support is much more important and in darcs world 
> Windows is a first class citizen. Unless you do the same people will 
> standardize on something else than tla.

True -- but a completely separate and unrelated issue (to patch
signing).


_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/