Fedora release criteria completely revised

James Laska jlaska at redhat.com
Fri Dec 11 16:52:21 UTC 2009

On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 08:20 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 10:53 -0500, James Laska wrote:
> > Not sure if this has been raised yet, but are we specifying when in the
> > release that packages should be signed with a valid signature?  I
> > believe packages are signed at all release milestones, but I'd like to
> > clear up that assumption.
> Do you think that's a criteria issue, i.e. something to which there's an
> innate correct answer which can be defined and which shouldn't change?
> I'd think of it more as a process issue, but IMBW.

Yeah, that's my question ... is there an assumption that all packages
will be signed?  Does this assumption need to be validated?  

Looking at our current test plans for the release, I don't see anything
where we confirm that packages are properly signed.  Should we be
testing this, and if so ... does it map back to a specific release
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20091211/1813861b/attachment.sig>

More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list