On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 9:31 AM Kevin Kofler via devel <devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > Neal Gompa wrote: > > This is also the underlying reason why Red Hat has resisted > > implementing signed repository metadata and enforcing it by default. > > Of course this is a bit of a catch-22 as well, as there's no > > motivation to find a solution because neither Fedora nor RHEL offer > > signed repository metadata despite repeated calls for it over the past > > decade. > > Is signed repository metadata not basically moot now that pretty much all > the world has moved on from unencrypted HTTP to secure HTTPS? >
No, because when you do things like mirror repositories (especially for private mirrors), that signature is the only way to verify the integrity. HTTPS is only transport encryption from a particular connection. Also, a ton of Fedora mirrors still don't use HTTPS for various reasons. > > Now, don't get me wrong: I'm personally extremely unhappy about having > > to depend on the Sequoia stack for RPM PGP. I have a strong distaste > > for the Rust community ecosystem these days, and I don't love the idea > > of having to have LLVM in the core bootstrap chain (hopefully gcc-rs > > will be in place soon enough!). > > The dependency on LLVM is not even the worst issue in my eyes. LLVM is also > used by other core projects, e.g., mesa, these days. > > The worst issue I see with Rust is the way libraries are "packaged", which > just implies installing source code and recompiling that source code for > every single application. (And as a result, the output obviously gets > statically linked into the application, with all the drawbacks of static > linking.) I consider a language with no usable shared library support to be > entirely unpackageable and hence entirely useless. > > And then of course there is the issue that it is yet another language with > yet another syntax (and an only partially C-like one, so the learning curve > is unnecessarily high), yet another library ecosystem, etc. C has been the > de facto lingua franca all this time, now we are back into a tower-of-babel > scenario with tons of programming languages, which will necessarily bloat > the core system over time. > > > So here we are, in a subpar situation created by bad tools because > > nobody cares enough about security anyway. > > Sounds like a mess indeed. > Well, it might still be worthwhile to split out RPM's OpenPGP implementation into its own project and allow people to contribute to it. The worst that can happen is that nothing changes. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
