From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041002 Firefox/0.10.1 Description of problem: After clean install of fc3-test-3 running: up2date -uf --nox [...] fedora-release-3-rawhide.no ########################## Done. The package fedora-release-3-rawhide is not signed with a GPG signature. Aborting... Package fedora-release-3-rawhide does not have a GPG signature. Aborting... Unable to procede with up2date. Manual downloading the package and installation is ok, but after that up2date wants to reinstall it and fails again. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): fedora-release-3-rawhide How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. fresh install fedora core3-test3 2. run "up2date -uf --nox" Actual Results: fedora-release-3-rawhide.no ########################## Done. The package fedora-release-3-rawhide is not signed with a GPG signature. Aborting... Package fedora-release-3-rawhide does not have a GPG signature. Aborting... Expected Results: download the package and move on to the next one... Additional info:
Rawhide normally will not be GPG signed. The up2date package currently in rawhide has signature checking on in anticipation of the FC3 release.
It's the only package in the list till that letter (f), so why shouldn't it be signed? Is it that great issue to sign it?
Signing it would set expectations that rawhide had been "approved for use" in some way. We want to differentiate rawhide from real releases as far as quality and functionality expectations go, and not signing the package is part of that differentation.