New package gpg signature acceptance test (was Latest FC13 kernel rejected as unsigned)
jlaska at redhat.com
Fri Apr 9 12:55:35 UTC 2010
On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 08:38 -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> The rpm kernel-220.127.116.11-19.fc13_18.104.22.168-24.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-22.214.171.124-24.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  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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20100409/aba982cb/attachment.bin
More information about the test