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(a)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.