Should Fedora rpms be signed?

[Elliot Lee]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Nils Philippsen wrote:

> On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 11:06 -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> 
> > That being said, let me take your points one by one:
> > 
> >   1. Replace something that worked well for years. What was the
> > mechanism previously that let me verify that the updated kernel RPM on
> > Mirror X was a bit-identical copy of the one actually published by Red
> > Hat? I know how to verify ISO's but know of nothing that verifies a
> > package was not tampered with after being placed on a mirror.
> 
> This is an old snapshot of Rawhide but serves well nonetheless:
> 
> nils at gibraltar:/misc/scratch/rawhide/i386/Fedora/RPMS> rpm -K rpmdb-fedora-1.91-0.20040325.i386.rpm bash-2.05b-38.i386.rpm
> rpmdb-fedora-1.91-0.20040325.i386.rpm: sha1 md5 OK
> bash-2.05b-38.i386.rpm: (sha1) dsa sha1 md5 gpg OK
> 
> See? I can verify that the bash package is signed with one of the keys I
> have in the keyring. Granted that I can't see (here) which key it was
> signed with

Actually, you can, using 'rpm -Kv'. :-)


-- Elliot