| 1 |
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 3 |
>> You want me to use a potentially unstable live ebuild instead? |
| 4 |
>> Well, no, that's not gonna happen. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Are you demanding that someone else produces for you, and refusing to |
| 7 |
> do anything but consume? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Keep in mind that the GLEP does not require anybody to actually use |
| 11 |
gkeys. It is just a tool intended to make the GLEP easier to follow. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
As has been pointed out, we haven't exactly been strict about |
| 14 |
enforcing compliance, and for my part I'm not inclined to see a lot |
| 15 |
more enforcement until the instructions/tools/etc catch up. If |
| 16 |
anybody wants to see increased adoption of the new GLEP, I'd recommend |
| 17 |
focusing more on easy instructions and tools. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
That said, anybody who cares enough will figure out how to get it |
| 20 |
working. I just made myself a dedicated tree-signing key and as far |
| 21 |
as I could tell the last time I looked at it the key complied. Just |
| 22 |
don't try to send me any encrypted email, since the key in LDAP |
| 23 |
probably doesn't work for encryption (having a separate LDAP record |
| 24 |
for signing key and communication key might make sense). :) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Rich |
Archives