| 1 |
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Torsten Veller <ml-en@××××××.wrote: |
| 2 |
> * Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>: |
| 3 |
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Antoni Grzymala wrote: |
| 4 |
> [Manifest signing] |
| 5 |
>> > Does that get us any closer to GLEPs 57, 58, 59 (or generally |
| 6 |
>> > approaching the tree-signing/verifying group of problems)? |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> yes |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I think, it's a "no". |
| 11 |
> The MetaManifest GLEP relies on a signed top-level "MetaManifest" which |
| 12 |
> hashes all sub Manifests, whether they are signed or not doesn't matter. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
that's *one* of the three gleps |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Do you want to reject signed commits if |
| 17 |
> - keys are not publicly available [1] |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
no. e-mail warnings will be issued so that the dev can upload it |
| 20 |
after the fact. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> - signatures are from expired keys [2] |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
not generally an issue since gpg itself will not allow it, but i guess |
| 25 |
we can be paranoid about it on the server to avoid people locally |
| 26 |
turning back their clocks after having snipped someones expired key. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
we might want to add an automatic e-mail warning to the developer when |
| 29 |
their key is about to expire (like 1 week). |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> - keys are revoked [3] |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
yes |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> - keys are not listed in userinfo.xml (current or former devs) [4] |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
no. you can sign a key with your personal key and that's good enough. |
| 38 |
-mike |
Archives