On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 02:17:19PM -0800, Fan Wu wrote: > We have also noticed many use cases for the fs-verity build-in signatures. Proposals > exist to use them[1]. Package managers were updated to use them[2]. We are > successfully using them in production. Therefore we prefer to keep the existing > build-in signatures. > > [1]https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FsVerityRPM#Enable_fs-verity_in_RPM > [2]https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/1121 Aren't those the same project? I already mentioned in the commit message that it was rejected from Fedora and seems to have been abandoned. So it seems to be something that didn't actually work out. Let me know if you know of anything to the contrary... - Eric
|