| 1 |
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:45:25 -0500 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > In gentoo-keys, it will relatively easy to generate a new key and one |
| 6 |
> > subkey using a template [1]. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Sounds great - we just need to get it into the GLEP (at least by reference). |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> > We just need an approved spec to test against. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> That is fair. I think rather than making the GLEP effective, we could |
| 13 |
> at least vote on whether the policies themselves are acceptable, that |
| 14 |
> way they can be locked down and we can update all the tools/docs/etc. |
| 15 |
> No sense writing code when anybody can change the spec. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> That is my main concern - the policy itself seems fine, we just can't |
| 18 |
> start telling devs next week to fix their keys. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Thanks for your work! |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Rich |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
If the council can decide what a recommended spec should be. That would |
| 26 |
be great. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
There are 23 devs that have errors in ldap for their gpg keys. |
| 29 |
Most of them have not done anything to fix it. I believe partially |
| 30 |
because this whole gpgkey thing is in flux. See the logs from the |
| 31 |
generation of the gpgkey developers.seeds file [1]. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
We can create/debug the tools needed. Devs will be free to upgrade, |
| 34 |
create new as needed manually if they wish. Helping to get the docs |
| 35 |
cleaned up and easy to follow. The enforcement of the new spec can be |
| 36 |
done later when the tools are in place. But in the meantime some |
| 37 |
progress is bound to be made. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
[1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~dolsen/gkey-logs/gkeyldap-20140223-23:12.log |
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
Brian Dolbec <dolsen> |
Archives