Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Seth Alan Woolley 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?

The individual keys would still be binaries...so we'd now have lots of
little binaries instead of one big one?

> 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?

I'd rather keep this simple. Our current setup seems to work and I see
no problems with it, whereas this would add more complexity to `scribe
update` (or wherever we would decide to put the repackaging of
tag.gpg).

- -sandalle

- --
Eric Sandall                     |  Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric AT sandall.us                  |  http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/          |  SysAdmin @ Inst. Shock Physics @ WSU
http://counter.li.org/  #196285  |  http://www.shock.wsu.edu/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDBoo0HXt9dKjv3WERAhWUAKCYTsxknKCXB+AcFm6AgM4mL0ccoQCglrUH
I1j80EUyUoa44rzdSu61l9E=
=jxOZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----