On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 01:37 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 12:58 -0400, James Antill wrote: > > Well the other side is having to explain to people, over the next X > > years, why gpgcheck=1 doesn't gpgcheck everything. > > Personally I'd go for allowing gpgcheck to have comma seperated values > > like the following: [snip] > > ...then default gpgcheck=1 to "packages,warn-repo-metadata", and change > > it to the non-warn varient before fedora-9. > > We'll probably want to keep the internal code using a boolean, in the > > short term, for back compat. ... but we can fix that up later quite > > easily. > > > > All config. names thought up on the spot, feel free to suggest better > > ones, etc. > > I agree this is probably the way to go.
After sleeping on it, I'm tending to agree here > I don't really like warn-repomd > very much b/c the most immediate feature request we'll get is > 'warn-packages'. I'd be inclined to always warn-repomd just out of > spite :) Yeah, we should definitely just always warn (assuming there is a signature; maybe not if there isn't). Jeremy _______________________________________________ Yum-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum-devel
