> > RPM doesn't actually need the fsverity utility to be present, but it does
> > need libfsverity
> Yup, the library is what I meant by my comment, not the utility. Thanks for
> adding the check.
> I'll need to take closer look at the updated version but overall I think its
> in fair shape for this point, and the added tags totally reasonable. So I'm
> considering the tags reserved, and there are no competing tag additions at
> the moment, but if it makes you sleep better we can certainly merge the tag
> addition right away to cement the reservation.
Sounds good, thanks for looking at it!
I think we can wait for the library to land. I pushed it into Fedora 32 for
testing yesterday, so hopefully it will get out shortly:
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Rpm-maint mailing list