Re: verifying signature for a package

2022-04-20 Thread Panu Matilainen
On 4/17/22 13:26, Maxwell G via devel wrote: Apr 16, 2022 8:01:27 PM Globe Trotter via devel : Source1:    %{source0}.sig Does this still fail if you use the full path? It looks like `%{source0}` isn't getting expanded properly. Macros are case-sensitive. It's %{SOURCE0}. - Panu

Re: verifying signature for a package

2022-04-17 Thread Ben Beasley
Thanks for the detailed explanation—which I didn’t have time to supply myself, but fully agree with—and the good advice to re-use the xfontsel keychain file. It’s even better when the key can come from a source with some nonzero (if imperfect) level of trust, like upstream’s HTTPS server, or an

Re: verifying signature for a package

2022-04-17 Thread Björn Persson
Ben Beasley wrote: > It doesn’t really matter what the file is called. Personally, I would rename > it to oclock.gpg and add a brief spec file comment explaining where it came > from. I agree. It's important to document where the key came from, and the filename by itself would just be

Re: verifying signature for a package

2022-04-17 Thread Ben Beasley
It doesn’t really matter what the file is called. Personally, I would rename it to oclock.gpg and add a brief spec file comment explaining where it came from. On Sun, Apr 17, 2022, at 12:19 PM, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: > Btw, I assume that i should call it xfontsel.gpg, or should I rename

Re: verifying signature for a package

2022-04-17 Thread Globe Trotter via devel
Btw, I assume that i should call it xfontsel.gpg, or should I rename it too? Thanks! On Sunday, April 17, 2022, 10:50:37 AM CDT, Globe Trotter via devel wrote: Thanks very much! I will do this today. On Sunday, April 17, 2022, 09:12:15 AM CDT, Björn Persson wrote: Ben

Re: verifying signature for a package

2022-04-17 Thread Globe Trotter via devel
Thanks very much! I will do this today. On Sunday, April 17, 2022, 09:12:15 AM CDT, Björn Persson wrote: Ben Beasley wrote: > Please see > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xfontsel/blob/a38f5a42fa7bc59378527cf05dabe29523675613/f/xfontsel.spec#_10 > for an example from the same

Re: verifying signature for a package

2022-04-17 Thread Björn Persson
Ben Beasley wrote: > Please see > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xfontsel/blob/a38f5a42fa7bc59378527cf05dabe29523675613/f/xfontsel.spec#_10 > for an example from the same group of X11 programs. What's described there is known as TOFU – trust on first use. Ben looked up which key made the

Re: verifying signature for a package

2022-04-17 Thread Globe Trotter via devel
On Sunday, April 17, 2022, 05:26:52 AM CDT, Maxwell G via devel wrote: > Apr 16, 2022 8:01:27 PM Globe Trotter via devel > : >> Source1:    %{source0}.sig > Does this still fail if you use the full path? It looks like `%{source0}` > isn't getting expanded properly. Yes,

Re: verifying signature for a package

2022-04-17 Thread Maxwell G via devel
Apr 16, 2022 8:01:27 PM Globe Trotter via devel : > Source1:    %{source0}.sig Does this still fail if you use the full path? It looks like `%{source0}` isn't getting expanded properly. Thanks, -- Maxwell G Pronouns: He/Him/His gotmax@e.email ___

Re: verifying signature for a package

2022-04-16 Thread Ben Beasley
Please see https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xfontsel/blob/a38f5a42fa7bc59378527cf05dabe29523675613/f/xfontsel.spec#_10 for an example from the same group of X11 programs. Note also that oclock was previously retired, so see

verifying signature for a package

2022-04-16 Thread Globe Trotter via devel
Hi, I am trying to pakage oclock for Fedora. According to the packaging guidelines I need to have a gpg key. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_source_file_verification So, the package itself comes with a oclock-1.0.4.tar.gz.sig (from upstream). How do I use this? I