Do 10.1 packages have to be signed by default? -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Marcel Hilzinger Linux New Media AG Süskindstr. 4 D-81929 München Tel: +49 (89) 99 34 11 0 Fax: +49 (89) 99 34 11 99
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 12:06:51PM +0200, Marcel Hilzinger wrote:
Do 10.1 packages have to be signed by default?
We *may* check the package signatures. Currently I think we do not check them, but we might change that. Ciao, Marcus
Am Dienstag, 2. Mai 2006 13:07 schrieb Marcus Meissner:
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 12:06:51PM +0200, Marcel Hilzinger wrote:
Do 10.1 packages have to be signed by default?
We *may* check the package signatures.
Currently I think we do not check them, but we might change that. So if I start to create Suse packages for 10.1 it's a good idea to sign them, right?
-- Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Marcel Hilzinger Linux New Media AG Süskindstr. 4 D-81929 München Tel: +49 (89) 99 34 11 0 Fax: +49 (89) 99 34 11 99
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 02:00:51PM +0200, Marcel Hilzinger wrote:
Am Dienstag, 2. Mai 2006 13:07 schrieb Marcus Meissner:
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 12:06:51PM +0200, Marcel Hilzinger wrote:
Do 10.1 packages have to be signed by default?
We *may* check the package signatures.
Currently I think we do not check them, but we might change that. So if I start to create Suse packages for 10.1 it's a good idea to sign them, right?
Yes. It is always a good idea to do so and its just a: rpm --resign / --addsign *.rpm command anyway. Ciao, Marcus
participants (2)
-
Marcel Hilzinger -
Marcus Meissner