Missing GPG sigs on Centos 4.2 SRPMS

[mailing-lists at hughesjr.com (Johnny Hughes)]

On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 15:00 +0100, Maciej ?enczykowski wrote:
> > What's worse is that it's a *Red Hat* key...
> 
> Not sure if that's bad - it's only a SRPMS after all, I'm not even 
> convinced that un-modified SRPMS should be resigned by CentOS (after all 
> what for?)
Well ... we have discussed this, and we do wish to sign the SRPMS so we
know they are the ones we used.  There are other distros that do not
resign the SRPMS.

The ones you mentioned are now replaced and going to the mirrors.

Thanks,
Johnny Hughes
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20051231/8fbfd988/attachment.bin