Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: robbat2@g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] PORTAGE_GPG_KEY strictness
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 07:16:55
Message-Id: 20121017091639.4fbb2a49@pomiocik.lan
1 On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 22:54:04 +0000
2 "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > Previously, the PORTAGE_GPG_KEY variable has allowed ANY argument, and
5 > passed it to GPG, letting GPG use that. This was intended to explicitly
6 > be a unique identifier for a key (or subkey).
7 >
8 > However, it seems that there are signed commits with other values in the
9 > variable, and instead of something nice like:
10 > (Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha138/cvs/Linux x86_64, signed Manifest commit
11 > with key 0x586A3B1F)
12 > We have commits with:
13 > (Portage version: 2.2.0_alpha138/cvs/Linux x86_64, signed Manifest commit
14 > with key emailaddress)
15 >
16 > This makes validation harder, as we need to extract the identity of the
17 > key from the Manifest before we can proceed. Additionally, if a
18 > developer has multiple keys, possibly over time, we cannot use this
19 > string to identify what key was used easily.
20 >
21 > As such, we've decided to make the PORTAGE_GPG_KEY strictly enforce what
22 > was originally intended.
23 >
24 > - You must specify a key or subkey exactly.
25 > - The leading "0x" is optional.
26 > - If you want to use a subkey, per the PGP specifications, you must
27 > suffix your keyid with "!".
28 > - Your keyid is exactly: 8, 16, 24, 32 xor 40 hexdigits long.
29
30 Isn't that fixing the issue from the wrong end?
31
32 I agree that the keyids in commit messages should follow some kind
33 of spec. But I rather think that portage should be modified to convert
34 any supported argument to follow that spec rather than the spec being
35 forced into the configuration file.
36
37 Also, will that matter anymore after the git conversion?
38
39 --
40 Best regards,
41 Michał Górny

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies