From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Q3BjZ-0007Kf-Eo for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 18:27:41 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AC27E1C07B; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 18:27:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-iy0-f181.google.com (mail-iy0-f181.google.com [209.85.210.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 769121C06B for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 18:26:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iyb26 with SMTP id 26so1713626iyb.40 for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:26:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=CNFAGimjfzAr3mvjCYw8mxw22lR59pwD/2OJ9HU1xss=; b=q4hB28FPIUZe6NYN36IH7eO3LIM+O2QyoYS/IpWWtz/weJqtDAkjczu4poxNSbme3M 6hFMzF9vPvzJE8MhQALoItsJQ8K8brv7Y/jRwFWij4rsltyBw5W6bGvQ+6+U5XCgvdbC 1/SpkTLVBRjERCjxVvf2+ZKqBW5LlNfbKPpY4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=CQDZFoAev379kEYFlM5jy7R+lvSukXHB0n7YWUNQFwnnDVT9K3HVwL6cnum5gIoNXD 2qfjeYb7Fogkw450/upX5LlJ91M/MAwCeEUP5I6tjO6l1rqeHiQ5JwJG7ZDvwDYfq0yC CZuQlyEZUUQbL5XhEiHT8zjHBlM2xaiFwUOk8= Received: by 10.231.67.213 with SMTP id s21mr1096725ibi.22.1301077616507; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:26:56 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: vapierfilter@gmail.com Received: by 10.231.11.195 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:26:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110325074824.TAf2c206.tv@veller.net> References: <20110325005026.55598579@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> <20110325000931.GA21942@lemongrass.antoszka.pl> <20110325074824.TAf2c206.tv@veller.net> From: Mike Frysinger Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:26:36 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7PT0S9ABeGiFqQAj3AuWbmxC6dE Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: rejecting unsigned commits To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 9150dadbc3a654f97c1677e7707761c7 On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 3:15 AM, Torsten Veller * Mike Frysinger : >> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Antoni Grzymala wrote: > [Manifest signing] >> > Does that get us any closer to GLEPs 57, 58, 59 (or generally >> > approaching the tree-signing/verifying group of problems)? >> >> yes > > I think, it's a "no". > The MetaManifest GLEP relies on a signed top-level "MetaManifest" which > hashes all sub Manifests, whether they are signed or not doesn't matter. that's *one* of the three gleps > Do you want to reject signed commits if > - keys are not publicly available [1] no. e-mail warnings will be issued so that the dev can upload it after the fact. > - signatures are from expired keys [2] not generally an issue since gpg itself will not allow it, but i guess we can be paranoid about it on the server to avoid people locally turning back their clocks after having snipped someones expired key. we might want to add an automatic e-mail warning to the developer when their key is about to expire (like 1 week). > - keys are revoked [3] yes > - keys are not listed in userinfo.xml (current or former devs) [4] no. you can sign a key with your personal key and that's good enough. -mike