* [gentoo-dev] Re: RE: Portage package security model... (Nic Desjardins)
@ 2002-02-19 9:42 Ali-Reza Anghaie
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Ali-Reza Anghaie @ 2002-02-19 9:42 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 746 bytes --]
Yes, I wasn't thinking of it from that perspective. The companies have
set processes for these things, I'm sure they have key managers, safes,
etc.
It's be difficult to maintain in the more organic Gentoo environment.
It'd be nice to think of in the future though IMO..
Another thing to re-visit in the future as other issues (that arguably
are more immediately important) hash themselves out.
-Ali
--
OpenPGP key 53F7FF5F
--
I consider forced-full-duplex to be a serious issue somewhere
between "..and these cars have the brake pedal on the right" and "we
decided to put the drinking water in the brown jugs, and the 'other'
water in blue". You won't necessarily die right away, but it isn't
healthy. -- Donald Becker
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 240 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2002-02-19 9:44 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-02-19 9:42 [gentoo-dev] Re: RE: Portage package security model... (Nic Desjardins) Ali-Reza Anghaie
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox