On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 02:42:38PM -0500, Maxwell G wrote:
> Jul 20, 2026 11:50:33 AM Neal Gompa <[email protected]>:
>
> > Sorry, I don't think this makes sense. Why %openpgpverify instead of
> > just changing the implementation under %gpgverify?
> If we can ensure that changing the implementation doesn't break any existing
> packages, I think updating the existing one makes sense, but otherwise
> renaming it is probably better.
I'm with Neal on this… Please make the existing macro use the new tool.
This will avoid a lot of work for both the Change Owners and the individual
packagers, and also a lot of noise in the packages. And additionally,
for packages which use the same branch for older releases, divergence
between the branches.
It seems that the great majority of packages are using the standard form
of "%{gpgverify} --keyring=… --signature=… --data=…", so hopefully we
can make the new impl. a seamless replacement.
Zbyszek
--
_______________________________________________
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://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
