| 1 |
On 01/08/04 10:56:43, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday 08 January 2004 08:12, John Nilsson wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > Uh, how silly. Either you trust someone with the whole tree or you |
| 4 |
> > > don't trust them at all. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Why not build something around a "web of trust" with pgp signatures? |
| 7 |
> > Have an open tree where people could submit anything that passed |
| 8 |
> > autotests. All submisions would be signed. Signed content could only |
| 9 |
> > get updated buy user with same signature or dev with higher trust for |
| 10 |
> > that area. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> This does not help at all for initial submissions. It allows anyone who |
| 13 |
> knows how to create a pgp key to get something in the tree. However if |
| 14 |
> you make some nuances to this idea, I think it could be workable. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
This was kind of the idea... In the future I would like a system where any |
| 17 |
developer can publish their project as an ebuild, just as one would put an rpm |
| 18 |
or install script on the web to day. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Point beeing thar some submissions would be screened by core devs and signed |
| 21 |
by them. Some trusted signs would be signed by core devs. When the |
| 22 |
infrastructure is up the decision to trust an ebuild is entirely up to the |
| 23 |
sys-admin: latest and greatest with a serious secutity risk or only ebuilds |
| 24 |
trusted by core devs. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I also see the portage tree evolving from a big hunk of files mirrored all |
| 27 |
over the place, into a web in its on right. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
/John |
Archives