New package gpg signature acceptance test (was Latest FC13 kernel rejected as unsigned)

[James Laska]

On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 08:38 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> The rpm kernel-2.6.33.1-19.fc13_2.6.33.1-24.fc13.x86_64.drpm downloaded, then it 
> looks as if it created an rpm by applying the delta and decided the rpm wasn't 
> signed? And there's also an rpm kernel-2.6.33.1-24.fc13.x86_64.rpm, which I 
> assume is the rpm created by the delta.
> 
> Is this some download error, or is there another problem with unsigned packages 
> getting into the repos? I did repeat the download, same CRC...

Seems worthy to add a package acceptance criteria to the Package Update
Acceptance Criteria [1] similar to the following:

      * Packages must be signed with a valid Fedora GPG signature

I guess one could argue that the existing criteria "Packages must be
able to install cleanly" would include valid signatures.  But it doesn't
hurt to be specific here.  

Comments/concerns/ideas?

Thanks,
James

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_acceptance_criteria
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20100409/aba982cb/attachment.bin