Should Fedora rpms be signed?

[Rodolfo J. Paiz]

On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 22:14 +0200, Matias Féliciano wrote:
> signed package, mean signed package.
> Go to the gnupg documentation if you want to learn more :
> http://www.gnupg.org/documentation/index.html
> 

Matías,

Even though I believe you have some interesting points, pointing very
experienced programmers such as Dave and Jeff to the GNUPG docs is
downright insulting and (I would say) entirely inappropriate.

*They* have a lot of credibility and have earned a reputation for
expertise and objectivity in this community, as far as I can tell from
my measly 10 years of participation in it. *You* do not have their level
of credibility yet, and disrespect to someone who is giving your points
serious thought and consideration is no way to get it.

Be nice.

-- 
Rodolfo J. Paiz <rpaiz at simpaticus.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20041028/30fe1312/attachment.bin