Re: [gentoo-dev] GPG key refresh

[Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org>]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 11:48 PM desultory <desultory@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On 12/16/20 03:01, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-12-15 at 23:37 -0500, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
> >> On 2020-12-15 11:16, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> >>> On 12/15/20 11:11 AM, Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you mean exactly?
> >>>>
> >>>> For Gentoo tooling, only Gentoo keyservers are important and
> >>>> Gentoo no longer synchronizes with any other pool.
> >>>>
> >>> "The Gentoo developer tooling explicitly checks the Gentoo
> >>> keyserver
> >>> pool with a much higher frequency" strongly implies that we check
> >>> the
> >>> non-Gentoo pools with a non-zero frequency.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'm with Michael on this. I've recently experienced this issue myself
> >> as the
> >> instruction to upload the key to the Gentoo keyserver is separate
> >> from the
> >> GLEP63[1] document. It doesn't matter that the step is documented if
> >> the Holy
> >> Tome GLEP63 doesn't mention it. What hint would I have to look for a
> >> supplemental document to provide that specific step?
> >>
> >> According to GLEP 63, uploading to the SKS keyserver is a
> >> requirement.
> >> However, it fails to specify which SKS keyserver. In fact, neither
> >> "SKS" nor
> >> "keyserver" are defined in GLEP63. Ergo, the natural interpretation
> >> is *anything*
> >> that's called an SKS keyserver will satisfy the requirement. As long
> >> as the
> >> developer can submit the key, the requirement is met.
> >>
> >> Additionally, the supplemental document[2] doesn't say developers
> >> must upload
> >> via an internal host, but that devs should upload to both SKS and the
> >> Gentoo
> >> keyserver. Yes, it says the Gentoo keyserver is currently restricted
> >> to syncing
> >> with "authorized Gentoo hosts", but that's a nonsense phrase and
> >> unhelpful. It
> >> assumes I know what the authorized Gentoo hosts are. It doesn't
> >> clearly state
> >> what they are. It kind of hints that it will pull from SKS
> >> eventually, but it
> >> could take a long time.
> >>
> >> I understand we temporarily stopped syncing with the public keyserver
> >> out of an
> >> overabundance of caution. However, that shouldn't have been done
> >> without
> >> updating every official Gentoo resource regarding how devs should
> >> handle their
> >> keys, which as far as I know is only two documents[1,2]. A whopping 2
> >> documents.
> >>
> >> This new (I know it's been around for a year but that doesn't make it
> >> any less
> >> new), stricter requirement, should be **explicitly** stated in
> >> GLEP63, properly
> >> referencing the justification[3], and linking to the infra
> >> supplemental
> >> document. The infra supplemental document needs to then use the
> >> phrase "must" in
> >> place of "should" when informing readers to upload to two different
> >> locations.
> >
> > ...and what have you done to resolve the problem, except for making
> > oververbose complaints and demands in middle of some random thread?
> >
> Discuss it, which is more than you have done here. There is no need to
> berate signal because you feel like making noise.
>
> Formulating and discussing ways to fix problems before actually fixing
> them helps to reduce effort wasted on rebuilding old solutions which
> have failed for whatever reason. In this case documentation needs to be
> updated, discussing the appropriate manner in which to update which
> documentation seems to be more grounds for engagement than recrimination.
>
> On the subject of updating the documentation, the proposal seems
> generally sound; do you have any constructive criticism of it?
>

So I can understand where Michał's reaction comes from. On my first
read through Aaron's message, it seemed like a long email complaining
about things that had been done wrong. Upon re-reading it with a
different mindset, it doesn't seem so bad if you skip over some of the
text.

For example, I don't think the paragraph below is necessary, and could
evoke a defensive reaction from the recipient.

> I understand we temporarily stopped syncing with the public keyserver out of an
> overabundance of caution. However, that shouldn't have been done without
> updating every official Gentoo resource regarding how devs should handle their
> keys, which as far as I know is only two documents[1,2]. A whopping 2 documents.

I think a shorter email simply requesting that the documentation be
updated would have sufficed.