On 06/22/16 12:27, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 06/21/2016 09:12 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> On 06/22/16 11:59, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>>
>>> I'll admit that the risk is hypothetical, but what does rpmfusion's flux
>>> have to do with the risk of allowing unsigned packages?
>>
>> It was only one package that was unsigned, and it came from rpmfusion, and they are in the
>> middle of putting up an new infrastructure.  So not unthinkable a package had slipped thru
>> unsigned.
>
> dnf stops at the first unsigned package.  All the rpmfusion F24 packages are currently
> in the updates-testing repository and are unsigned.

Right, and that is why I suggested I should have disable just the rpmfusion check.

In any event....  If you are worried, don't upgrade.  If you're not worried, upgrade.
Your choice.

--
You're Welcome Zachary Quinto

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org