On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 11:43:19AM -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 08/05/2015 09:58 PM, Christopher Meng wrote:
> >On 7/18/15, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >>I thought I'd ask here first: is there a strong reason *not* to include
> >>those keys?
> >
> >It's not recommended to encourage end
On 08/05/2015 09:58 PM, Christopher Meng wrote:
On 7/18/15, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
I thought I'd ask here first: is there a strong reason *not* to include
those keys?
It's not recommended to encourage end users installing EOL releases.
I don't see how this affects people installi
On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 12:58:36PM +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
> On 7/18/15, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > I thought I'd ask here first: is there a strong reason *not* to include
> > those keys?
>
> It's not recommended to encourage end users installing EOL releases.
>
> However a se
On Wed, 5 Aug 2015, Neal Gompa wrote:
I disagree that including the keys for EOL'd releases counts as
"encouraging" people to use old stuff. If someone has a reason to be
building RPMs for something way-old, I think it'd be nice for us to keep
those GPG keys available for them.
Agreed.
Paul
-
On 7/18/15, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> I thought I'd ask here first: is there a strong reason *not* to include
> those keys?
It's not recommended to encourage end users installing EOL releases.
However a seperate package for gpg keys from EOL releases is OK.
But is it worthwhile to mo
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Ryan S. Brown wrote:
> On 08/01/2015 03:25 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 10:40:45AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 17:28:48 +
> >> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >>
> >>> [In light of https://bugzi
On 08/01/2015 03:25 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 10:40:45AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 17:28:48 +
>> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>>
>>> [In light of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241383]
>>>
>>> 'dnf install --inst
On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 10:40:45AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 17:28:48 +
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>
> > [In light of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241383]
> >
> > 'dnf install --installroot=... --releasever=XX dnf' can be used to
> > bootstrap
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 17:28:48 +
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> [In light of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241383]
>
> 'dnf install --installroot=... --releasever=XX dnf' can be used to
> bootstrap a Fedora chroot. The only snag is that --nogpg is often
> recommended, beca
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 05:28:48PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> [In light of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241383]
>
> 'dnf install --installroot=... --releasever=XX dnf' can be used to bootstrap
> a Fedora chroot. The only snag is that --nogpg is often recommended, b
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
[In light of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241383]
'dnf install --installroot=... --releasever=XX dnf' can be used to bootstrap
a Fedora chroot. The only snag is that --nogpg is often recommended, because
fedora-repos only p
[In light of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241383]
'dnf install --installroot=... --releasever=XX dnf' can be used to bootstrap
a Fedora chroot. The only snag is that --nogpg is often recommended, because
fedora-repos only provides the GPG keys for the current and next release.
It
12 matches
Mail list logo
