On 09/20/2016 11:00 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
On 20 September 2016 at 09:15, Hongxu Jia <hongxu....@windriver.com
-Upstream-Status: Submitted [Sent email to rpm-de...@rpm5.org
+Upstream-Status: Rejected [Sent email to rpm-de...@rpm5.org
Considering upstream has explicitly rejected this patch, why should we
From his reply, he will remove "SUPPORT_NOSIGNATURES" code in future:
Note that all the code marked with "SUPPORT_NOSIGNATURES" is targeted
for removal. RPM5 has been producing MANDATORY signed packages for
more than 5 years, so all packages produced by RPM5 SHOULD have
both verifiable signatures/pubkeys included for many years now.
Your alternative (of course) is to re-patch rpm to re-add --nosignatures as
you wish: I will be happy to send you the needed patch when I remove
all the SUPPORT_NOSIGNATURES code.
If we need to support --nosignatures, we have to re-patch rpm locally.
We could drop it after upstream removes "SUPPORT_NOSIGNATURES"
Openembedded-core mailing list