Re: Should Fedora rpms be signed?

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

 



On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 22:14 +0200, Matias Féliciano wrote:
> signed package, mean signed package.
> Go to the gnupg documentation if you want to learn more :
> http://www.gnupg.org/documentation/index.html
> 

Matías,

Even though I believe you have some interesting points, pointing very
experienced programmers such as Dave and Jeff to the GNUPG docs is
downright insulting and (I would say) entirely inappropriate.

*They* have a lot of credibility and have earned a reputation for
expertise and objectivity in this community, as far as I can tell from
my measly 10 years of participation in it. *You* do not have their level
of credibility yet, and disrespect to someone who is giving your points
serious thought and consideration is no way to get it.

Be nice.

-- 
Rodolfo J. Paiz <rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


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