| 1 |
On Thursday 03 April 2008 14:55:43 Patrick Lauer wrote: |
| 2 |
> >> But if you don't trust anyone there is no reason why you would even |
| 3 |
> >> try to interact with Gentoo. So at some point you will have to decide |
| 4 |
> >> to arbitrarily trust a few entities, be it devs or servers or |
| 5 |
> >> cryptographic keys ... |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Uh huh, which is what my original reply to Mike was all about. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > We're way ahead of you here... |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Or so you think. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> So now that you've tried to label me as a dimwit |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I think you managed that quite well on your own. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> we're past that stage and can now return to actually discussing the set of |
| 18 |
> issues and how to handle them, ja? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The point of this subthread was that limiting developers' access to only the |
| 21 |
parts of the tree they are going to work on accomplishes nothing from a |
| 22 |
security point of view and only makes things harder when they occasionally |
| 23 |
need to do tree wide changes from any other point of view. There is no |
| 24 |
technical solution that can "fix" that. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Bo Andresen |
| 28 |
Gentoo KDE Dev |
Archives