SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-DEVEL Archives

February 2012

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-DEVEL@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Dmitry Butskoy <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Dmitry Butskoy <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:01:46 +0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (27 lines)
>
> Can I have you check again with rpmdev-checksig?  The zlib rpm you
> listed below is signed by TUV and by SL, perhaps it is only checking the
> one key.
>    

Could you please explain how you sign these packages?

According to the rpm(8) man page,
> SIGNING A PACKAGE
> rpm --addsign|--resign PACKAGE_FILE ...
>
> Both of the --addsign and --resign options generate and insert new sig‐
> natures for each package PACKAGE_FILE given, replacing any existing
> signatures. There are two options for historical reasons, there is no
> difference in behavior currently.

Note "replacing any existing signatures". IOW, after SL-sign, any 
previous TUV-sign data should be removed, isn't it?

A broken "rpm -K" behaviour breaks my scripts and certainly I'm 
impressed a little... :-/


Regards,
Dmitry Butskoy

ATOM RSS1 RSS2