▲ 33 ▼ Fedora F44 Change Proposal: Enforcing signature checking by default (discussion.fedoraproject.org) submitted 1 year ago by cm0002@lemmings.world to c/linux@programming.dev 3 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] eleijeep@piefed.social 7 points 1 year ago (2 children) Fedora doesn't already require valid signatures on RPMs? Isn't that somewhat terrifying? permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] entwine@programming.dev 6 points 1 year ago (1 child) Higher level package managers like yum and dnf/dnf5 have implemented their own enforcing signature modes, enabled by default since the beginning of Fedora. This change brings the RPM side default behavior to this millenium. So it seems it only applies to manually installing RPMs, but I think most people probably use dnf or yum to install packages permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] eleijeep@piefed.social 4 points 1 year ago That's fair, and I suppose it's the same for Debian and .debs vs. apt install permalink fedilink source parent
[–] entwine@programming.dev 6 points 1 year ago (1 child) Higher level package managers like yum and dnf/dnf5 have implemented their own enforcing signature modes, enabled by default since the beginning of Fedora. This change brings the RPM side default behavior to this millenium. So it seems it only applies to manually installing RPMs, but I think most people probably use dnf or yum to install packages permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] eleijeep@piefed.social 4 points 1 year ago That's fair, and I suppose it's the same for Debian and .debs vs. apt install permalink fedilink source parent
[–] eleijeep@piefed.social 4 points 1 year ago That's fair, and I suppose it's the same for Debian and .debs vs. apt install permalink fedilink source parent
all 3 comments