Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: NP-Hardass <NP-Hardass@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Git, GPG Signing, and Manifests
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 03:06:21
Message-Id: 55A8711B.9070400@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Git, GPG Signing, and Manifests by Brian Dolbec
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA256
3
4 On 07/16/2015 09:25 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
5 > On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 21:13:09 -0400 NP-Hardass
6 > <NP-Hardass@g.o> wrote:
7 >
8 >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
9 >
10 >> Not sure if this has been covered in some of the rather long
11 >> chains of late, but I was thinking about GPG signing, and how the
12 >> proposed workflow requires every developer to sign their commits.
13 >> Currently, it's advised that every manifest be signed. As far as
14 >> I know, there are a number that are not. When a manifest is
15 >> signed, the author is saving a state, and providing a means to
16 >> check it has not changed.
17 >
18 >> Additionally, I feel that a signature is a means of acknowledging
19 >> that a package has been looked over, and that developer has
20 >> stated that they approve of the existing state. I'm not sure if
21 >> others agree with that sentiment, but if anyone does, my question
22 >> is, how does the conversion process to git handle these packages,
23 >> where the manifests are not signed. Is there an intention to
24 >> blanket cover all packages when we switch to git? Will these
25 >> packages be copied over directly and still maintain their
26 >> unsigned manifest (I think this is unlikely as I read that there
27 >> would be a switch to thin manifests, requiring regeneration)? If
28 >> the community doesn't view the signature of the manifest as I
29 >> just described, then a blanket signing would be fine.
30 >
31 >> Would appreciate your thoughts either way, as I could be
32 >> overthinking the issue :P
33 >
34 >> - -- NP-Hardass
35 >
36 >
37 > No, with the git working tree, we will switch to thin manifests and
38 > the entire commit will be signed. Not only that, but the push to
39 > the main server will also be signed (a push may contain commits
40 > signed by a different person that the person pushing).
41 >
42 > For the regular rsync tree, Full manifests will be regenerated as
43 > needed and signed by a common infra supplied gpg key. So for
44 > general users, it will be easy to verify without having all gentoo
45 > devs gpg keys. That will be different for users of the git tree.
46 >
47 >
48 >
49
50 Ah ha. so, with thin manifests, we as devs don't sign the manifest, me
51 sign the commit.
52
53 The infra key for the user facing tree makes sense. Thanks for
54 filling me in. So, will infra be using that key to do the initial
55 commit to the repo?
56
57 Are there plans to the make the repo, w/ metadata and signed by infra,
58 available to end users as a rsync alternative?
59
60 And my apologies to all for the multiple messages. My cron plugin for
61 my email client is wonking.
62
63 - --
64 NP-Hardass
65 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
66 Version: GnuPG v2
67 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
68
69 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJVqHEbAAoJEBzZQR2yrxj7jVMQALWoMkXzxapjYlBaGtOk5eyd
70 XQQuWH6m4U+9DrzQRJEeaCivIJmzXHPAVU6Rd40gBGqlSTMoJKm2pIMkxGvDLLd7
71 zIwuPolamQhFM0vhkUOidfgBqvCbFJV5rFTKtIPXg28JivoY7omi4/oANd0V8L7A
72 YRik152d2cFW+rdITLhgf3JNky99yOy4NR3SYB/dQY+E8D+5RaCXjy/EqjNqbsin
73 To+/far3d5e2/Z7dDlfyuhYyG6dwbFl8vY7RN+eERH68GTqj2bjy2EL0T9FAVwWI
74 O9i4T1sRIneYVfd3MEoLwkPHjhfDOmP/zLloFaqT9AUtiVlVf9vMy5dKXHva1OTe
75 cmNicf66YBsSD2J6mMRHE4N7iTn8tpI5W7+WpXa2gyEeqWwDwbENxNU1IHlZ0Ys7
76 cHpfhkx63oWwvDQX3XKjl1fUjoVEoJ/6HhHNWboLaAxJ/XUcZCAGNEaF9NVtE0FN
77 VUFmU7ZU1GLkk+MAKxpwdMqa9+LJ+Sr+4/NzF1ceE54yoq0ks+PfafyMybseOptK
78 bKbiAQ4/GvDB3Tpw4S2QuqYZ3pT/enxYET3v8YxVPE6Hw79RYeaMtEEnm0Niy29k
79 CHUT6T0Ul3IfS6LQZtEwC40Izs/usM+HH2XuYP3OfkBLgK8LUhEUcVNiC6B6frUD
80 M6d04xGeSvDVMo9vBoYb
81 =Fufx
82 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Git, GPG Signing, and Manifests Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o>