Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rejecting unsigned commits
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:54:47
Message-Id: 201103251552.11192.dilfridge@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rejecting unsigned commits by "Michał Górny"
1 > > Having said that, for those that just use "keys" for e-mails (most of
2 > > us), it would make more sense to use full blow SSL certs in the long
3 > > run. (Mathematically, same thing. But a cert needs to be signed by a
4 > > CA, and we should ideally maintain a Gentoo CA.) I need to get up to
5 > > speed with the GLEP's pertaining to this. Let's just say I have a
6 > > fair bit of experience in this field. I may be able to offer some
7 > > ideas / suggestions. I would very much like to see this happen.
8 >
9 > How about Gentoo Foundation funding devs a full blown X509 client
10 > certs?
11
12 Please dont go for the SSL bloat... just my 2ct...
13
14 --
15 Andreas K. Huettel
16 Gentoo Linux developer - kde, sci, arm, tex
17 dilfridge@g.o
18 http://www.akhuettel.de/

Attachments

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