Re: gpgcheck=0 for development?
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 09:55 +0200, Mike Hammill wrote:
Does this imply that all development tree packages are NOT signed,
and
thus that gpgcheck=0 is necessary? Feels a tad scary. Can one check
signatures using a different system like APT instead of Yum, for
example?
Most are signed, some are not. Thats why its rawhide/development
\
--
Colin Charles, http://www.bytebot.net/