Archives
Archives
| From: | Anthony Metcalf <anthony.metcalf@×××××××××××.cx> |
|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-security@l.g.o |
| Subject: | [gentoo-security] gpg signing in portage. Can we use it yet? |
| Date: | Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:41:54 |
| Message-Id: | 20041108124126.00005dfb@Halloween |
| 1 | This http://www.gentoo.org/news/20041021-portage51.xml tells us all about the gpg signing working it's way into portage. |
| 2 | |
| 3 | It tells us what to add to make.conf to have the sigs checked. |
| 4 | |
| 5 | Doing so gives the error |
| 6 | |
| 7 | PORTAGE_GPG_DIR is invalid. Removing gpg from FEATURES. |
| 8 | |
| 9 | Two questions. |
| 10 | |
| 11 | 1) What do I, as a user have to do now to start testing/playing with gpg signed manifests? |
| 12 | |
| 13 | 2) Why were partial, incompleate instructions put in the newsletter? |
| 14 | |
| 15 | There seem to be a lot of signed manifests now, a grep of the portage tree gave me a 60K file with just the package names. Seems like a good time to start using them. |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-security] gpg signing in portage. Can we use it yet? | Tobias Sager <moixa@×××.ch> |
| Re: [gentoo-security] gpg signing in portage. Can we use it yet? | Anthony Metcalf <anthony.metcalf@×××××××××××.cx> |