Hi, the latest qemu–kvm-ev has been tagged for testing. Please give it a run and provide feedback. If nothing against it shows up, we’ll tag it for release on Friday.
Thanks,
5 thoughts on - Qemu-kvm-ev-2.6.0-28.el7_3.3.1 Tagged For Testing
Is it considered normal for the test RPMs to not be signed?
The testing RPMs are not signed .. they are straight from CBS. Does the testing repo not have ‘gpgcheck=0’?
–JKKIU6fHc6gdwcmp7qlKr2qjg1hc19cS2
Ok, thanks. Given the level of system interaction that qemu/kvm has, it would be an ideal vector for malware, and package signing prevents this. My copy of the repo file has the following:
+++++++++++
[CentOS-qemu-ev-test]
name
The update pulled in a new .repo file as part of the release package, and this stanza now shows gpgcheck=0
5 thoughts on - Qemu-kvm-ev-2.6.0-28.el7_3.3.1 Tagged For Testing
Is it considered normal for the test RPMs to not be signed?
I’ve no control over signing, Karanbir?
–JKKIU6fHc6gdwcmp7qlKr2qjg1hc19cS2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The testing RPMs are not signed .. they are straight from CBS. Does the testing repo not have ‘gpgcheck=0’?
–JKKIU6fHc6gdwcmp7qlKr2qjg1hc19cS2
Ok, thanks. Given the level of system interaction that qemu/kvm has, it would be an ideal vector for malware, and package signing prevents this. My copy of the repo file has the following:
+++++++++++
[CentOS-qemu-ev-test]
name
The update pulled in a new .repo file as part of the release package, and this stanza now shows gpgcheck=0