On 06/22/16 12:27, Samuel Sieb wrote: > On 06/21/2016 09:12 PM, Ed Greshko wrote: >> On 06/22/16 11:59, Gordon Messmer wrote: >> >>> I'll admit that the risk is hypothetical, but what does rpmfusion's flux >>> have to do with the risk of allowing unsigned packages? >> >> It was only one package that was unsigned, and it came from rpmfusion, and they are in the >> middle of putting up an new infrastructure. So not unthinkable a package had slipped thru >> unsigned. > > dnf stops at the first unsigned package. All the rpmfusion F24 packages are currently > in the updates-testing repository and are unsigned. Right, and that is why I suggested I should have disable just the rpmfusion check. In any event.... If you are worried, don't upgrade. If you're not worried, upgrade. Your choice. -- You're Welcome Zachary Quinto -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
