On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 10:41:13 +0000, Andre Robatino <robatino@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The question was raised why RPMs sign their compressed data, rather than > uncompressed. (One advantage would be to avoid deltarpm rebuild failures due to > changes in compression such as the recent one in xz.) The answer had to do with > the fact that higher-level tools (createrepo and yum) depend on the current > behavior, but that doesn't address whether it's just an early design mistake > that we're locked into now, or if there's actually some overall advantage to > doing things this way (that outweighs the obvious disadvantage of inflexibility > in how the data is compressed). Can anyone shed some light on this? Uncompressing hostile data is generally not a good thing to be doing. From that aspect it makes more sense to sign the compressed payload. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
