On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 18:30 -0500, Thomas Cameron wrote: > On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 16:04 -0700, Nathan Grennan wrote: > > On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 15:25 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote: > > > On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 15:08 -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > > > > On 6/11/05, Matt Carter <matt.carter85@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Same here downloaded the first CD it never mentioned anything about > > > > > being a test release, also the release notes say Fedora core 4 so I > > > > > hope its gonna be the official. > > > > > > > > Sweet! My "make a fake FC4 and add a backdoor" plan is working > > > > perfectly. Soon I and my hordes of drones will take over the world. > > > > Mwahahahaha. > > > > > > *Your* plan? I though that was *my* plan! Don't tell me you did it > > > without letting me know! No respect these days, I tells ya... > > > > Hmm, my both have a copy of the Red Hat Fedora private gpg key? The > > SHA1SUM files are signed and for just such reasons. > > > > I personally compared the official Fedora key and the key used to sign > > the SHA1SUM file. It passed the test. Plus all the rpms are signed on > > top of that. Which gets around risks of SHA1 hash collisions. > > So in plain old English for us mere mortals, does that mean that this > torrent is legit? They are the final FC4 ISO images? Most likely, with two potential problems. One, you have to trust me or do the tests yourself. Two, Red Hat could find a bug that causes it to format partitions when told not to at random today and then decide to make a new release. One is easy to solve, and two is a small risk. Another issue is that yum isn't going to work very well since most mirrors aren't open. Some repositories have some FC4 packages, but not all of them. Others have no FC4 packages. Overall in general I say go for it if you are already running a FC4 test or rawhide. Because there is just as much risk. If you are still running FC3 it is probably best to stick with FC3 for another few days at least.