X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
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
X-Mail-Handler:	MailHop Outbound by DynDNS
X-Report-Abuse-To:	abuse AT dyndns DOT com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User:	U2FsdGVkX1/BjDNlc6ss1ngF74oorXUL
Date:	Sat, 28 Apr 2012 20:45:49 -0400
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT 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 AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<4F9B1EF7 DOT 1080501 AT comcast DOT net> <4F9B6DC1 DOT 3030303 AT gmail DOT com> <4F9B77B1 DOT 9070200 AT gmail DOT com> <4F9C22B1 DOT 5000405 AT comcast DOT net> <20120428180621 DOT GA23030 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <CADSoG1tUY2BXCsU2UcnrgFPAg9KXFn2N5J4zcoi_MVJUQwb0Aw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20120428205029 DOT GB20709 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <CADSoG1tVAHVoi3fCtXT+ZRpywJ2w_jcMXgCfoNVEaoLVPGA7JA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<CADSoG1tVAHVoi3fCtXT+ZRpywJ2w_jcMXgCfoNVEaoLVPGA7JA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

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

- Raw text -