SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

November 2009

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Mailling list for Scientific Linux users worldwide <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:32:04 +0000
MIME-version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Dr Andrew C Aitchison <[log in to unmask]>
Content-type:
TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
Subject:
Re: package jdk-1.6.0_16-fcs.x86_64.rpm is not signed
From:
Dr Andrew C Aitchison <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]>
Comments:
To: Gianni Pucciani <[log in to unmask]> cc: [log in to unmask]
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (20 lines) 
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009, Gianni Pucciani wrote:

> Hello,
> I noticed that the package jdk-1.6.0_16-fcs.x86_64.rpm is not signed

> Do you know why that package is not signed?

We haven't found a way of signing the jdk.x86_64 package that
signature checking tools will accept.

I understand that Sun make the rpms themselves and the licence
does not allow Red Hat or SL to rebuild them.
Unfortunately Sun use version 3 of rpm and the standard tools
do not sign v3 format packages. A work around exists for 32bit
packages, but we don't know an equivalent for x86_64 packages :-(

-- 
Dr. Andrew C. Aitchison		Computer Officer, DPMMS, Cambridge
[log in to unmask]	http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~werdna

ATOM RSS1 RSS2