On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 11:00 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
James Laska (jlaska(a)redhat.com) said:
> 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?
The process flow is:
1. package is built in koji
<any delay from maintainer>
2. update is submitted in bodhi
<delay until next push>
3. package is signed
<then nearly instantaneously>
4. package is pushed
When you say "package is pushed", do you mean pushed to the requested
repo (updates vs updates-testing)?
From a user-perspective, having to use --skip-broken seems just as bad
as using --nogpgcheck. But if I understand correctly, given the
workflow above we don't have a mechanism to enforce this in the QA
space?
Thanks,
James