On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 12:20:23PM +0200, Luca Berra wrote:
well, most of them are, and i believe all should be signed, not
necessarily by mandrake, but at least from the packagers.
After such thing as the gnu ftp server compromise i believe it is only
responsible to sign packages.
I'd love
Ainsi parlait Luca Berra :
On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 01:05:02PM +0200, Buchan Milne wrote:
Warly said they were trying to address the issue. Note that it is actually
impossible for some contributors to sign packages (my ~/.gnupg on klama is
owned by root and thus prevents me from signing
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 12:50:24PM +0200, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
export GNUPGHOME=/path/to/a/directory/you/own
rpm -ba --sign my.spec
Being able to do it or not is not the problem. Contribs packages are official
mdk packages, built on a centralized buildhost, they should get signed with a
On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 01:05:02PM +0200, Buchan Milne wrote:
Warly said they were trying to address the issue. Note that it is actually
impossible for some contributors to sign packages (my ~/.gnupg on klama is
owned by root and thus prevents me from signing packages built on klama):
[EMAIL
The following packages have bad signatures:
/var/cache/urpmi/rpms/gvlc-0.6.2-2mdk.i586.rpm: Missing signature (sha1 md5 OK)
/var/cache/urpmi/rpms/mozilla-plugin-vlc-0.6.2-2mdk.i586.rpm: Missing signature (sha1
md5 OK)
/var/cache/urpmi/rpms/vlc-0.6.2-2mdk.i586.rpm: Missing signature (sha1 md5 OK)
Ainsi parlait Luca Berra :
The following packages have bad signatures:
/var/cache/urpmi/rpms/gvlc-0.6.2-2mdk.i586.rpm: Missing signature (sha1 md5
OK) /var/cache/urpmi/rpms/mozilla-plugin-vlc-0.6.2-2mdk.i586.rpm: Missing
signature (sha1 md5 OK) /var/cache/urpmi/rpms/vlc-0.6.2-2mdk.i586.rpm:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 12:13:37PM +0200, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
Ainsi parlait Luca Berra :
The following packages have bad signatures:
...
contribs are not signed at all.
well, most of them are, and i believe all should be signed, not
necessarily by mandrake, but at least from the packagers.
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, Luca Berra wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 12:13:37PM +0200, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
Ainsi parlait Luca Berra :
The following packages have bad signatures:
...
contribs are not signed at all.
well, most of them are, and i believe all should be signed, not
necessarily
