[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Should Fedora rpms be signed?
- From: Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta gmail com>
- To: For testers of Fedora Core development releases <fedora-test-list redhat com>
- Subject: Re: Should Fedora rpms be signed?
- Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 14:33:30 -0500
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 12:58:22 -0600 (CST), Satish Balay <balay fastmail fm> wrote:
> No confusion here either - as rawhide packages are never mistaken for
> erratum packages.
really? noone ever mistakes a package from rawhide as a consumable package?
really? no one ever does a random search for a package from an online
rpm warehouse and finds a package meant as a piece of rawhide and not
as a consumable update?
really? no one ever takes packages from the rawhide tree and mixes
them with updates and creates a homebrew repository that other users
will be using?
i think you need to spend more time in general purpose community
forums and watch how often the less informed are confused about what
rawhide/development packages are meant for. Everyone in this
conversation is in the 1% tail of the distribution of clue in the
userbase. Arguing that you are not confused is sort of pointless. I
see people confused by what rawhide is, every single day.
-jef
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]