Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

2016-09-10 Thread Tomasz Pala
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 23:22:39 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > The better patch (headed toward elimination of ???no signature disablers) > is to wrap the tests on the ???query path with > > #if defined(SUPPORT_NOSIGNATURES) > ??? > #endif > > and then rip out the

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

2016-09-10 Thread Jeffrey Johnson
> On Sep 10, 2016, at 2:32 PM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 09:46:17 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: > is not enough/complete. And I've just found this (some 'triple negation' issues), as recently noted in

Re: npm and bundled modules

2016-09-10 Thread aredridel
> On 10 Sep 2016, at 17:46, Paweł A. Gajda wrote: > > Our npm is packaged wihtout bundled npm modules, what is generally good and > maybe elegant, but it's just hard to maintain as there is over 70 node > modules (npm 3.x) it depends on. That is probably the reason, why npm

npm and bundled modules

2016-09-10 Thread Paweł A . Gajda
Our npm is packaged wihtout bundled npm modules, what is generally good and maybe elegant, but it's just hard to maintain as there is over 70 node modules (npm 3.x) it depends on. That is probably the reason, why npm has not been upgraded from 1.x. npm itself bundle its dependencies,so, what I

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

2016-09-10 Thread Tomasz Pala
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 09:46:17 -0400, Jeffrey Johnson wrote: >>> is not enough/complete. And I've just found this (some 'triple negation' >>> issues), as recently noted in >>> http://rpm5.org/community/rpm-devel/5655.html >>> >>> Jeff, this seems to BE the case - verification is reverted only

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

2016-09-10 Thread Jeffrey Johnson
> On Sep 10, 2016, at 7:48 AM, Tomasz Pala wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:53:25 +0200, Tomasz Pala wrote: > >> our rpm and reverting it. Since nobody playing with rpm did this, my >> GUESS is, that: >> >> rpm-5.4.9-support-signatures-and-digest-disablers.patch >> >>

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

2016-09-10 Thread Tomasz Pala
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:53:25 +0200, Tomasz Pala wrote: > our rpm and reverting it. Since nobody playing with rpm did this, my > GUESS is, that: > > rpm-5.4.9-support-signatures-and-digest-disablers.patch > > is not enough/complete. And I've just found this (some 'triple negation' >

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

2016-09-10 Thread Tomasz Pala
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 11:41:46 +0300, Elan Ruusamäe wrote: >>> Since we got the answer for this issue - th-admin, please publish separate >>> GPG files. >> Are we announcing PLD being dead? Current DSA+RSA GPG key is unusable >> for rpm, the one from FTP is being packaged, so it's also

Re: rpm --nosignature reversed meaning

2016-09-10 Thread Elan Ruusamäe
On 10.09.2016 07:23, Tomasz Pala wrote: On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 13:03:25 +0200, Tomasz Pala wrote: Since we got the answer for this issue - th-admin, please publish separate GPG files. Are we announcing PLD being dead? Current DSA+RSA GPG key is unusable for rpm, the one from FTP is being