Sign RH9 dependency RPMs with SHA256 #7262
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
EL9 based OS's changed their crypto policies and dropped support for SHA1 keys. (https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/rhel-security-sha-1-package-signatures-distrusted-rhel-9). Reported by xcat2/xcat-dep#51
This PR changes
builddep.shscript to sigh RPMs inrh9directory with SHA256. The remaining RPMs will continue to be signed whith SHA1.If xCAT is installed with
go-xcat, this dropping of SHA1 keys support on EL9 should not be a problem, since it usesdnf --nogpgcheckflag. However, if xCAT dependency RPMs are installed directly withdnforyum, the installation of SHA1 signed RPMs will fail.