[PING][ANN] Updated: rsync-2.5.5-2

[Pavel Tsekov <ptsekov at gmx dot net>]

What should we do with this package ? It has been almost two weeks since
Lapo posted it and there isn't a single comment. Is it ok to be uploaded ?

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Lapo Luchini wrote:

> Ready at the same usual address:
> http://www.lapo.it/tmp/rsync-2.5.5-2.tar.bz2
> http://www.lapo.it/tmp/rsync-2.5.5-2-src.tar.bz2
>
> Revision changelog:
> 1 Compiled with gcc version 3.2 20020818 (prerelease)
> 2 Included Anthony Heading's patch to avoid dead child processes
>    http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2002-09/msg01155.html
> 3 build script updated to support digital signatures
> 4 source package now contains original's package detached gpg signature
>    by the author and detached signatures on the script itself and on the
>    patch, signed by me
> 5 signatures can be checked with "./rsync-2.5.5-2.sh checksig"
> 6 "./rsync-2.5.5-2.sh all" can still be used to create an unsigned
>    package (with only original rsync package signature)
> 7 "SIG=1 ./rsync-2.5.5-2.sh all" can still be used to create a
>    signed package (with only original rsync package signature AND
>    signatures on script and patch)
>
> 1 and 2 lead me to suggest a "test" period for the package
> 3 is just a nifty feature I liked adding, but it is intended to be
> optional, that's why I have not changed the "normal" build command and
> it correctly checks (and warns) for missing /usr/bin/gnupg an the such
>
> I would like a negative or positive comment on the "improved" script, too =)
>
> --
> Lapo 'Raist' Luchini
> lapo@lapo.it (PGP & X.509 keys available)
> http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796)
>