On 3/13/25 10:56 AM, Dan Čermák wrote:
Aoife Moloney via devel-announce
writes:
* This is the first version of rpm built as C++, so rpm gains a
runtime dependency on libstdc++.
I am not too happy about yet another dependency. As someone involved in
building containers, I constantly have to
On 3/13/25 10:05 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 13. 03. 25 v 8:31 dop. Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
On 3/12/25 12:45 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 11. 03. 25 v 10:36 dop. Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
It's exactly for reasons like this that rpm will not even try to
automatically setup the signing -
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 6:19 AM Dan Čermák
wrote:
>
> Alexander Sosedkin writes:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 10:42 AM Dan Čermák
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Panu Matilainen writes:
> >>
> >> > On 3/13/25 10:56 AM, Dan Čermák wrote:
> >> >> Aoife Moloney via devel-announce
> >> >> writes:
> >> >>
>
V Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 11:26:31AM +0200, Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
> On 3/13/25 10:56 AM, Dan Čermák wrote:
> > Aoife Moloney via devel-announce
> > writes:
> >
> > > * This is the first version of rpm built as C++, so rpm gains a
> > > runtime dependency on libstdc++.
> >
> > I am not too hap
Alexander Sosedkin writes:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 10:42 AM Dan Čermák
> wrote:
>>
>> Panu Matilainen writes:
>>
>> > On 3/13/25 10:56 AM, Dan Čermák wrote:
>> >> Aoife Moloney via devel-announce
>> >> writes:
>> >>
>> >>> * This is the first version of rpm built as C++, so rpm gains a
>> >
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 10:42 AM Dan Čermák
wrote:
>
> Panu Matilainen writes:
>
> > On 3/13/25 10:56 AM, Dan Čermák wrote:
> >> Aoife Moloney via devel-announce
> >> writes:
> >>
> >>> * This is the first version of rpm built as C++, so rpm gains a
> >>> runtime dependency on libstdc++.
> >>
>
Panu Matilainen writes:
> On 3/13/25 10:56 AM, Dan Čermák wrote:
>> Aoife Moloney via devel-announce
>> writes:
>>
>>> * This is the first version of rpm built as C++, so rpm gains a
>>> runtime dependency on libstdc++.
>>
>> I am not too happy about yet another dependency. As someone involve
Aoife Moloney via devel-announce
writes:
> * This is the first version of rpm built as C++, so rpm gains a
> runtime dependency on libstdc++.
I am not too happy about yet another dependency. As someone involved in
building containers, I constantly have to battle the growth of
everything and now
Dne 13. 03. 25 v 8:31 dop. Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
On 3/12/25 12:45 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 11. 03. 25 v 10:36 dop. Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
It's exactly for reasons like this that rpm will not even try to automatically setup the signing - it has no way of
knowing what the right thin
On 3/12/25 12:45 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 11. 03. 25 v 10:36 dop. Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
It's exactly for reasons like this that rpm will not even try to
automatically setup the signing - it has no way of knowing what the
right thing is.
Mock has it's own signing plugin, rpm wont int
Dne 11. 03. 25 v 10:36 dop. Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
It's exactly for reasons like this that rpm will not even try to automatically setup the signing - it has no way of
knowing what the right thing is.
Mock has it's own signing plugin, rpm wont interfere with it:
https://rpm-software-manageme
> * The most noticeable change is that RPM now refuses to install
> packages whose signature hasn't been positively verified, whether due
> to being unsigned, missing key or otherwise. This can be worked around
> by supplying `--nosignature` on the command line, or more permanently,
> changing the
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025, at 12:16 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 4:44 PM Michel Lind wrote:
>>
>> > * support for signing with Sequoia-sq as an alternative to GnuPG
>>
>> Is this not already supported in the current RPM? I seem to remember dealing
>> with issues due to us usi
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 4:44 PM Michel Lind wrote:
>
> > * support for signing with Sequoia-sq as an alternative to GnuPG
>
> Is this not already supported in the current RPM? I seem to remember dealing
> with issues due to us using sequoia-sq and it being stricter with some non
> compliant sign
On 3/10/25 4:54 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 12:44:44PM +, Aoife Moloney via devel-announce
wrote:
[...]
== Benefit to Fedora ==
The major theme in 6.0 is increased security and related improvements:
* enforcing signature checking on by default
snip
* support
On 3/11/25 8:58 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2025-03-10 at 16:42 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* The most noticeable change is that RPM now refuses to install
packages whose signature hasn't been positively verified, whether due
to being unsigned, missing key or otherwise. This can be worke
On Mon, 2025-03-10 at 16:42 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * The most noticeable change is that RPM now refuses to install
> > packages whose signature hasn't been positively verified, whether due
> > to being unsigned, missing key or otherwise. This can be worked around
> > by supplying `--nosig
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 12:44:44PM +, Aoife Moloney via devel-announce
wrote:
> Wiki - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-6.0
> Discussion thread -
> https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f43-change-proposal-rpm-6-0-system-wide/146855
>
> This is a proposed Change for Fedora Linux.
>
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025, at 5:44 AM, Aoife Moloney via devel-announce wrote:
> Wiki - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-6.0
> Discussion thread -
> https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f43-change-proposal-rpm-6-0-system-wide/146855
>
> This is a proposed Change for Fedora Linux.
> This do
19 matches
Mail list logo
