On Thursday 18 September 2008 02:43:13 pm Michael DeHaan wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Mike McLean <mikem(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>> I do agree we need to start from somewhere. I think we should start
>>> from the redhat key since that is one that is locked on lots of cdrom
>>> media etc for people to trust against. After that, we should have the
>>> EPEL key signed by that one and then the resulting fingerprints
>>> published in appropriate places.
>> o boy. That sounds like a tall order. We'll have to ask pm and legal
>> about that one.
>> At any rate, I don't think the signing you suggest will make installing
>> epel-release any easier for anyone.
> In the end its not about making the install easier. Its more about
> trust of that installation. If the Fedora Keys are signed by the Red
> Hat master GPG key... should EPEL be also signed if it is being used
> for various Red Hat projects (spacewalk-0.3, cobbler, etc).
Slight clarification -- Any products resulting from the above projects
will likely have their bits for RHEL end up distributed through RHEL
channels (i.e. RHN). I can't speak to Spacewalk though, but Cobbler
will still be available in EPEL regardless. I like EPEL, it's great
and full of some nice software, but Red Hat does not support bits from
EPEL, so we can't source the bits from there. Spacewalk is probably
considered a "layered" product, so I'm not sure what the stance on that
in EPEL is -- Free IPA /is/ in Fedora, however, and we have had the
previous discussion about other bits on this list. Either way, I'm not
an authority on the above :)
until such time as spacewalk can work with postgresql
or some other open
source database there will be a spacewalk repo but the goal is to be in
Fedora and EPEL.
satellite is a layered product and cant depend on EPEL. spacewalk is not a
layered product and does depend on EPEL.
That all being said, I'd love to see the packages from EPEL
some form as there are a /lot/ of users using those same apps straight
from EPEL, support or no -- they use them and they should be signed.
This has nothing to do with whether or not they are to be used for Red
Hat things or otherwise, it's just a good thing to do since people
depend on those repos.
all EPEL packages are signed. they key is distrubuted in
package. I honestly don't think its a good idea to have epel-release signed
by Red Hats signing key.
As for distributing an epel-release with RHEL, I'm not sure if
would happen or not as EPEL doesn't come with support. I probably would
not expect that to occur, but I think lots of folks do know about EPEL
if they want to use it.
I dont think epel-release should ever be in RHEL if
anything disabled epel
repo configs and the gpg key shipped with redhat-release. but that takes
control out of our hands. so im not for that.
I will get the fingerprint for the epel key posted @