Dnia Mon, Jan 05, 2026 at 05:22:30PM -0500, Neal Gompa napisał(a): > > > RHEL 10 already contains RPM signing keys that cannot be understood by > > > GnuPG. > > > > Why oh why? > > > > I mean, I'm all for replacing gnupg by something better. But why is RH > > deliberately chosing key types which force sequoia adoption? > > > > They chose PQC algorithms because... they want PQC signatures. As far > as I'm aware, GnuPG doesn't *have* support for PQC algorithms. And > we've been using Sequoia for RPM signature validation since Fedora > Linux 38. From *our* perspective, there's nothing wrong with using > those new algorithms.
Maybe not even *want*, but *need*. There are more and more regulations requiring hybrid and PQC algorithms. Some data: https://pqcc.org/international-pqc-requirements/ -- Tomasz Torcz RIP is irrevelant. Spoofing is futile. [email protected] Your routes will be aggreggated. – Alex Yuriev -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
