RE: [resend] handling rpm signing for secondary arch packages
by Zhan, Yi
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jesse Keating [mailto:jkeating@redhat.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 2:33 AM
> To: doug.chapman(a)hp.com
> Cc: seth vidal; Tom "spot" Callaway; fedora-secondary-
> list(a)lists.fedoraproject.org; Zhan, Yi
> Subject: Re: [resend] handling rpm signing for secondary arch packages
>
> On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 17:41 -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
> >
> > I appended my ia64 public key to RPM-GPG-KEY but yum only imports the
> > first key in the file. So it sounds like the best option would be to
> > add the new key as RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-$BASEARCH. I am not all that
> > concerned about the fact that the new config won't get installed on
> > existing systems. We can document this so people can do a workaround on
> > previously installed ia64 systems. The majority of the installs will
> > probably be fresh anyway.
>
> Both Seth and I agree that having multiple keys in one file is going to
> be a better route going forward so Seth is going to look at what it
> would take to get yum working with multiple keys. If it turns out to be
> too much or too invasive as an F9 update, we'll fall back to multiple
> files. We should know early next week. Will that be soon enough for
> you Doug?
>
Is there any news about this?
Thanks,
Yi
> --
> Jesse Keating
> Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
15 years, 10 months
- 1
- 0
Re: [resend] handling rpm signing for secondary arch packages
by Doug Chapman
On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 14:33 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-05-27 at 17:41 -0400, Doug Chapman wrote:
> >
> > I appended my ia64 public key to RPM-GPG-KEY but yum only imports the
> > first key in the file. So it sounds like the best option would be to
> > add the new key as RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-$BASEARCH. I am not all that
> > concerned about the fact that the new config won't get installed on
> > existing systems. We can document this so people can do a workaround on
> > previously installed ia64 systems. The majority of the installs will
> > probably be fresh anyway.
>
> Both Seth and I agree that having multiple keys in one file is going to
> be a better route going forward so Seth is going to look at what it
> would take to get yum working with multiple keys. If it turns out to be
> too much or too invasive as an F9 update, we'll fall back to multiple
> files. We should know early next week. Will that be soon enough for
> you Doug?
>
I would prefer not to let things slide out too long as we are already a
couple weeks later than we had planned on shipping ia64 F9. However I
don't want our release to get in the way of having a clean way to ship
keys.
So yes, lets see about making yum work with multiple keys in a single
file. Let me know what I can do to help make this go quickly/smoothly.
thanks,
- Doug
15 years, 10 months
- 1
- 0
- ← Newer
- 1
- Older →