On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 03:53:04PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > Then write the patch. That is all that this is going to take... even > if it doesn't get incorporated it will be there for some probably > large group that does want it (I would use it myself.) Because the > current approach of trying to "shame" the developer into writing it > for you is NOT working. The problem is more, that a patch for a process and not an individual program is required. Even if a patch for anaconda existed (which is probably trivial, because it would only require to no disable the signature checking), one would still need to create custom boot images for it to be useful. And getting processes changed regarding signed packages seems to me to be at least impossible for me. I failed at least four times (buildgroups for EPEL5, RPM keys included in mock, get a chain of trust between Fedora gpg keys/get old gpg keys revoked, get packages signed in koji/for rawhide). At least for fedup there is hope that the required data will be produced to be able to write a patch for it. Regards Till -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
