On 9/30/12 12:33 AM, Michael J. McConachie wrote:

0001-Test-Tags-for-input-system-software-updating.xml.patch

From ebc068bd50d3761e36ad66649e53c3dc48b29d8e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michael McConachie <michael@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 22:50:52 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 1/6] Test Tags for input/system/software/updating.xml

---
 RHEL6/input/system/software/updating.xml | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/RHEL6/input/system/software/updating.xml b/RHEL6/input/system/software/updating.xml
index ac9e590..1cbaae2 100644
--- a/RHEL6/input/system/software/updating.xml
+++ b/RHEL6/input/system/software/updating.xml
@@ -56,8 +56,8 @@ the <tt>[main]</tt> section:
 </description>
 <ocil clause="GPG checking isn't enabled">
 To determine whether <tt>yum</tt> is configured to use <tt>gpgcheck</tt>,
-inspect <tt>/etc/yum.conf</tt> and ensure that the following appears in the
-<tt>[main]</tt> section:
+inspect <tt>/etc/yum.conf</tt> and <tt>/etc/yum.repos.d/(reponame).repo</tt>
+to ensure that the following appears in the <tt>[main]</tt> section:
 <pre>gpgcheck=1</pre>
 A value of <tt>1</tt> indicates that <tt>gpgcheck</tt> is enabled. Absence of a
 <tt>gpgcheck</tt> line or a setting of <tt>0</tt> indicates that it is
-- 1.7.11.4
Ack to the validity of checking both /etc/yum.conf and /etc/yum.repos.d/*

In review, is there a reason why we should have both of the following rules?
" Ensure gpgcheck Enabled In Main Yum Configuration" and
" Ensure gpgcheck Enabled For All Yum Package Repositories"

Seems to make sense to combine the two into a single rule, likely using the <description>, <ocil> and <rationale> from " Ensure gpgcheck Enabled In Main Yum Configuration" but the <title> from " Ensure gpgcheck Enabled For All Yum Package Repositories"

Mike, could you knock that out? (unless you or someone else see validity in having a "check all repos" and then another rule checking a specific one. Seems redundant.