Re: Should Fedora rpms be signed?

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

 



Le mardi 26 octobre 2004 à 12:25 +0200, Ralph Angenendt a écrit :
> nodata wrote:
> > A recent scam involving fake updates to Fedora has highlighted the lack of
> > signed RPMs for Fedora Core.
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> | [angenenr@localhorst packages]$rpm -K samba-common-3.0.6-2.fc2.i386.rpm
> | samba-common-3.0.6-2.fc2.i386.rpm: (sha1) dsa sha1 md5 gpg OK
> 

Only gtk2, gtk2-devel, fedora-release and rpmdb-fedora are not signed
currently (because FC3 finale).
Two weeks ago, there are 600 packages not signed (1 Go).

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=


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