Re: Should Fedora rpms be signed?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: For testers of Fedora Core development releases <fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Should Fedora rpms be signed?
From: Harald Hoyer <harald@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:53:33 +0200
In-reply-to: <55987.195.34.133.68.1098797915.squirrel@195.34.133.68>
List-archive: </archives/fedora-test-list>
List-help: <mailto:fedora-test-list-request@redhat.com?subject=help>
List-id: For testers of Fedora Core development releases <fedora-test-list.redhat.com>
List-post: <mailto:fedora-test-list@redhat.com>
List-subscribe: <http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list>, <mailto:fedora-test-list-request@redhat.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list>, <mailto:fedora-test-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <49796.195.34.133.68.1098782874.squirrel@195.34.133.68> <2983.12.29.16.103.1098793539.squirrel@whooper.org> <44586.195.34.133.60.1098794724.squirrel@195.34.133.60> <1898.12.29.16.103.1098795709.squirrel@whooper.org> <57043.195.34.133.61.1098796431.squirrel@195.34.133.61> <1098797058.14731.26.camel@douglas-furlong.firebox.com> <55987.195.34.133.68.1098797915.squirrel@195.34.133.68>
Reply-to: For testers of Fedora Core development releases <fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (X11/20041020)

nodata wrote:

MD5sums are probably already available for Rawhide, but yum doesn't
(AFAIK) verify these against MD5sums published by Red Hat on Red Hat's
site.


An md5sum is integrated in the rpm itsselves...
$ rpm -K udev-039-1.i386.rpm
udev-039-1.i386.rpm: sha1 md5 OK

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Should Fedora rpms be signed?
  - From: nodata

References:
- Should Fedora rpms be signed?
  - From: nodata
- Re: Should Fedora rpms be signed?
  - From: William Hooper
- Re: Should Fedora rpms be signed?
  - From: nodata
- Re: Should Fedora rpms be signed?
  - From: William Hooper
- Re: Should Fedora rpms be signed?
  - From: nodata
- Re: Should Fedora rpms be signed?
  - From: Douglas Furlong
- Re: Should Fedora rpms be signed?
  - From: nodata

Prev by Date: Re: warning to list
Next by Date: Re: Should Fedora rpms be signed?
Previous by thread: Re: Should Fedora rpms be signed?
Next by thread: Re: Should Fedora rpms be signed?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Fedora Desktop] [Fedora SELinux] [Photo Sharing] [Yosemite Forum] [KDE Users]