> > 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

Reply via email to