Should Fedora rpms be signed?

[Matias Féliciano]

Le jeudi 28 octobre 2004 à 15:17 -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz a écrit :
> On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 22:14 +0200, Matias Féliciano wrote:
> > signed package, mean signed package.
> > Go to the gnupg documentation if you want to learn more :
> > http://www.gnupg.org/documentation/index.html
> > 
> 
> Matías,
> 
> Even though I believe you have some interesting points, pointing very
> experienced programmers such as Dave and Jeff to the GNUPG docs is
> downright insulting and (I would say) entirely inappropriate.

Sorry.

But I am tired with this mix of authentification, quality, rawhide mean
"don't complain", trust own unsigned rawhide rpm but don't trust own
unsigned rpm if it's not rawhide, ... arguments.
In France, mixing things not really related, we call this "noyer le
poisson" (I can't translate).
Signed rpm is about authentification. Nothing else.

I will not advocate for signed rpm any more since it seems I am near the
"only" one to care about.

> 
> *They* have a lot of credibility and have earned a reputation for
> expertise and objectivity in this community, as far as I can tell from
> my measly 10 years of participation in it. *You* do not have their level
> of credibility yet, and disrespect to someone who is giving your points
> serious thought and consideration is no way to get it.
> 
> Be nice.

I'll try :-)

> 
> -- 
> fedora-test-list mailing list
> fedora-test-list at redhat.com
> To unsubscribe: 
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/attachments/20041028/26148934/attachment.sig>