Should Fedora rpms be signed?

[seth vidal]

On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 10:35, William Hooper wrote:
> nodata said:
> [snip]
> > Aside from the verifications carried out by the human (I'm not sure what
> > these are), the signed package from Red Hat would have one important
> > advantage over an unsigned package from Red Hat - that it really did pass
> >  through one of the Red Hat build servers.
> 
> As the Fedora process opens up this distinction becomes less and less
> important. 


Not to be pessimistic but what evidence do you have of the opening of
the fedora process?

-sv