Public SourceMage Discussion List

["Jeremy Blosser (emrys)" <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>]

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