Should Fedora rpms be signed?

[Matias Féliciano]

Le mardi 26 octobre 2004 à 10:54 -0400, William Hooper a écrit : 
> Matias Féliciano said:
> > Le mardi 26 octobre 2004 à 13:17 +0200, nodata a écrit :
> >
> >> Fedora Core test (rawhide) isn't signed.
> >>
> >>
> >> Why?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Or :
> > RHEL beta is signed.
> > Why ?
> 
> You are beating a dead horse.
> 
> A) Fedora Rawhide isn't RHEL.
> B) RHEL Betas move slowly (as an example, there have only been a perl
> update and an RPM update since the RHEL v4 Beta was released in
> September).
As Test Fedora, Beta RHEL is not for mission critical.
As Test Fedora, Beta RHEL is for test propose.
As Test Fedora, Beta RHEL is not a supported product.
As Test Fedora, Beta RHEL is public.
As Test Fedora, Beta RHEL is only composed with free software.
As Test Fedora, Beta RHEL is free ($0).

> C) RHEL Betas use RHN.
And rpms are signed. useless ?

> D) Fedora Test releases (which are a better comparison to RHEL Beta
> releases) are signed.

And updates are not (contrary to RHEL Beta).

So, the question is not closed :
Why all Beta RHEL packages are signed ?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20041026/28b43716/attachment.bin