doc question for FC1/FC2 users

[Rob Myers]

On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 15:52 -0500, Eric Rostetter wrote: 
> Quoting Rob Myers <rob.myers at gtri.gatech.edu>:
> 
> > On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 15:26 -0400, Chuck R. Anderson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 02:20:10PM -0500, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I've just updated the yum docs, and have a question about FC1 yum
> > (probably
> > > > FC2 also).  In the docs, we have an example yum.conf which contains the
> > line:
> > 
> > this may be a good time for you to revisit this bug:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=152801
> > 
> > rob.
> 
> I think this bug should be closed.  Reasons are:
> 
> 1) Adding that line won't work for all cases (only works with FL yum, and
>    FL yum not available for all releases, people use other yums, etc).

gpg checking is available on a per repository basis.  since all FL
packages are signed it is reasonable to add it for the FL repository. 

> 2) The page already says you should use the FL yum and the FL yum.conf
>    instead if possible, which would give you the desired effect.

we are talking about http://www.fedoralegacy.org/docs/yum-fc1.php right?
the desired effect is to help people have secure updates by default.
enabling gpg key in the sample yum.conf facilitates this.

> 3) Using it can cause problems with unsigned packages, etc.  (In particular
>    if you mix other repos in, etc).

all FL packages are signed so it does not matter if this causes problems
for unsigned packages or for other repos.

> 4) Using it requires additional steps (importing the needed gpg signatures, 
>    etc).

i agree.  it adds one additional step: the importation of FL's gpg key.
this simple step is already included in step 2.2 of your documentation.

> 5) The gpg checks and keys are documented elsewhere.

by that flawed reasoning you shouldn't have any yum documentation on the
fedoralegacy website.

> If anyone can explain to me otherwise, please do.  But my feeling is this
> is a non-issue really, and the bug should be closed with a WONTFIX or
> whatever it is.

it should be clear that _i_ disagree with you on this, but what does
everyone else think?

rob.