gpgcheck=0 for development?

[Colin Charles]

On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 09:55 +0200, Mike Hammill wrote:
> Does this imply that all development tree packages are NOT signed, and
> thus that gpgcheck=0 is necessary?  Feels a tad scary.  Can one check
> signatures using a different system like APT instead of Yum, for
> example?

Most are signed, some are not. Thats why its rawhide/development
\
-- 
Colin Charles, http://www.bytebot.net/