Rob Reynolds
Rob Reynolds
Thank you @teknowledgist - I was only wanting to tease out the aspects of where things were different. Like @majkinetor, I think it would be a good thing to have....
@teknowledgist the thumbprint is static. For instance, if you take a look here, you can see what choco.exe's thumbprint is - https://chocolatey.org/security#chocolatey-binaries-and-the-chocolatey-package
Although, this brings up a good point - the thumbprint does change when we update our certificate (which we just did for 0.10.10) - 4BF7DCBC06F6D0BDFA8A0A78DE0EFB62563C4D87 is the thumbprint for it.
Updated just now at https://github.com/chocolatey/choco/wiki/Security#chocolatey-binaries-and-the-chocolatey-package (will be pushed over to the site on next site deploy).
The packages do this on submission to the community repo. There may be benefit to doing it ahead of time as well.
@thomasvm I think it was having unfold available from chocolatey.
It's probably more of a history thing - cream installer was best avail at that point in time
Agreed that this should move. How to handle existing installs on the upgrade path?
Folks want things to not chamge things much past installer defaults without params on the community repo. Switching out an installer on upgrade could upset some folks so having a...
Is there a PR for that?