Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG keyring storage ?

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jeremy Blosser (emrys)" <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG keyring storage ?
  • Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:09:27 -0500

On Aug 19, Seth Alan Woolley [seth AT positivism.org] wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 07:42:35PM +0200, Ladislav Hagara wrote:
> > >
> > > be a problem. I would prefer four or five people who had their public
> > > keys in a keyring instead of one commonly shared key everybody has
> > > access to -- then we can trace guilt ;).
> > >
> > Personally I don't like big changes in perforce and moreover I hate
> > binary files there.
> > It is very difficult to check it out.
> >
> > What about if in perforce were stored only individual keys and the
> > keyring was created on the user's box as part of scribe update?
> >
>
> Then if you got a keyring, you'd have to know how to break it apart into
> separate files and our specific format -- as long as this process was
> documented, I think it would be ok. Perhaps we can store ascii armored
> public keys with the --minimal* gpg switches as tag-name.pgpk files
> which then are coalesced into tag.gpg files?
>
> We should make them part of tarball creation, too, not another thing
> done on scribe update, or does it matter to anybody if we decentralize
> this part?

If they aren't getting stored in p4 as keyrings then it complicates testing
by just using your ~/p4/smgl/devel/ area as a grimoire. You'd have to keep
both the binary keyring and ascii key file around but only commit the
ascii, or something.

Not impossible or anything but I imagine if we make this all much more
complex people are going to mutiny against using it.

Attachment: pgpKbY20oyfzH.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page