sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: flux <flux AT sourcemage.org>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification
- Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:02:57 +0900
Sukneet Basuta (sukneet AT gmail.com) wrote [11.12.14 13:54]:
> I was thinking that spell maintainers could for now just set the hash
> of the signature to a set variable (for example SIG_HASH). It will be
> ignored by current versions of Sorcery, but will prepare the grimoire
> for the change, which will obviously take a while to do.
> I was also thinking that the signature hash should be optional in
> sorcery, at least upon introduction. That is, if SIG_HASH is missing,
> spells would still cast fine. This is advantageous to us since there
> are quite a few spells in the grimoire (with a decent amount
> unmaintained) so it'll take quite a while to update them all.
Ah, I thought you were actually calling for a more involved change such
that spells would fail without a version of sorcery including the
change.
> That's fine. I was merely trying to get things going. No one seconded
> my motions for a vote anyway and it been more than a week—unless David
> was seconding the motion by saying he was going to work on it.
> Maybe Bor's idea to first draft a new set of standards and then vote
> is the proper way to go about this.
Let's keep pushing. :) I think we should do the following, in order:
1) Call for a vote regarding putting SIG_HASH= in all spells that use
upstream signatures. If this passes, then we would update the policy
accordingly that spell writes MUST add SIG_HASH when adding an upstream
signature file to use for a spell.
2) If (1) passes, then call for a vote for how to implement it in
sorcery (make it an optional check, required check, etc.), by when, etc.
If this seems like a good idea, and nobody else makes the call, I'll
call for the vote.
--
Justin "flux_control" Boffemmyer
Cauldron wizard and general mage
Source Mage GNU/Linux
http://www.sourcemage.org
Attachment:
pgpBUJYYdBBRB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification
, (continued)
- Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification, flux, 12/01/2011
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification,
Sukneet Basuta, 12/02/2011
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification,
flux, 12/02/2011
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification,
David Kowis, 12/02/2011
- Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification, Bor Kraljič, 12/03/2011
- Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification, Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik, 12/03/2011
- Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification, Sukneet Basuta, 12/04/2011
- Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification, David Kowis, 12/09/2011
- Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification, flux, 12/13/2011
- Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification, Sukneet Basuta, 12/13/2011
- Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification, flux, 12/17/2011
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification,
David Kowis, 12/02/2011
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification,
flux, 12/02/2011
- Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification, Ismael Luceno, 12/12/2011
- Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification, flux, 12/13/2011
- Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification, Ismael Luceno, 12/22/2011
- Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification, Sukneet Basuta, 12/22/2011
- Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification, Ismael Luceno, 12/22/2011
- Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification, Sukneet Basuta, 12/22/2011
- Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification, Ismael Luceno, 12/22/2011
- Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification, Thomas Orgis, 12/23/2011
- [SM-Discuss] e-17 section, Robin Cook, 12/27/2011
- Re: [SM-Discuss] e-17 section, Thomas Orgis, 12/28/2011
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.