4 ms·
Am I right in saying that Arch still doesn't have package signing by default? I know they've been working on adding it. Until it has that it can't really be use
by kaolinite 14y ago
Am I right in saying that Arch still doesn't have package signing by default? I know they've been working on adding it. Until it has that it can't really be used imo.
- alexchamberlain 14y agoYeah, that work has been completed.
- ocharles 14y agoIt has package signing. A quick Google search would have answered your question - http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/01/17/1446248/package-signing-comes-to-pacman-and-arch-linux http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/01/17/1446248/package-sig.... Voila!
- kaolinite 14y agoI know, however last I heard it wasn't enabled by default and many packages don't support it.
- cakeface 14y agoHere is a good post about Arch package signing from the lead pacman dev http://www.toofishes.net/blog/real-story-behind-arch-linux-package-signing/ http://www.toofishes.net/blog/real-story-behind-arch-linux-p... Also, I believe that "pacman" definitely wins the award for best package manager names.
- kaolinite 14y agoYeah, though as ocharles and alexchamberlain (and myself, actually) have mentioned, it has now been implemented as of January 2012. The issue now is that it doesn't seem to be enabled by default (afaik) and doesn't seem to work with all packages. As for pacman itself - I agree. Great name and one of the fastest package managers I've ever used.