Re: security with gcj

--- On Tue, 7/8/08, Andrew Haley wrote:

> Not really, no.  I'm not sure hos much sense this
> makes,
> in any case: when you install an executable, whether
> it's
> been built by gcj or something else, that's the time to
> check that it has been signed by someone you trust.  RPM
> provides this facility, as do a bunch of other package
> management programs.

It is quite different the RPM "sign" all the "tar" just before/during
the installation, instead the method with "al" sign the application every
time it is execute, because is the executable itself that will be certified.
x10