Bug 166408
Summary: | unsigned package pyxf86config-0.3.19-6.i386.rpm | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Peter Ennis <peterennis> |
Component: | pyxf86config | Assignee: | Christopher Blizzard <blizzard> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2005-08-22 17:03:43 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Peter Ennis
2005-08-20 17:35:53 UTC
from 8/20/2005: (12/12): gtk2-2.8.0-2.i38 100% |=========================| 5.0 MB 02:22 unsigned package pyxf86config-0.3.19-6.i386.rpm [root@lfs ~]# Thank you for the report. However this should be report against pyxf86config and not against yum. Reassigning to the correct component Rawhide packages aren't signed. OK. This prompts the following: 1. Why is this the only one of 148 updates that shows it is not signed? Special status? 2. If that is a stated policy then what is the best procedure for updating when only signed packages are desired? Do I just ignore the unsigned rpms and they will not be installed? 3. At what point do packages get signed? Thanks, PFE Still NOTA and no answer. (41/41): libgcj-4.0.1-11. 100% |=========================| 7.6 MB 03:30 unsigned package pyxf86config-0.3.19-6.i386.rpm [root@lfs ~]# |