<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <title></title> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Nils Philippsen wrote: <blockquote cite="mid1099057232.4019.89.camel@gibraltar.stuttgart.redhat.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 15:35 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">And this assumption is wrong. A signature on a package is absolutely not correlated to the quality of it. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> That last sentence should read: "Having a Red Hat signature on a package is absolutely not correlated to the quality of it." -- i.e. we generally sign all packages "leaving the house", be they Rawhide, beta or final. Sorry for the confusion this may have caused. Nils </pre> </blockquote> Hi Nils, My comment about the correlation of signature to quality was this. RedHat has a known/documented process for generating a package that "leaves the house", i.e. certain procedures are followed for testing and quality assurance. If RH didn't they wouldn't be in business for long. The consumers understand the difference between rawhide and release and decide accordingly based on their level of risk. Bottom line is a RH release is "known quantity" quality wise. If I were to release a package with my signature on it, consumers would have no clue as to the quality of that release. RH release = higher quality, lower risk, RH rawhide = good quality, moderate risk. JB release = ?? quality, expect to lose your computer...:-) John </body> </html>