Re: Revival of the signed debs discussion
* Wouter Verhelst (wouter@grep.be) [031203 23:10]:
> Op wo 03-12-2003, om 10:09 schreef Andreas Barth:
> > > > file back signed by the build admin. The debian archive scripts
> > > > accepts packages signed by a buildd-key only if it is a binary package
> > > > for this architecture, the key is valid (i.e. in the right year), and
> > > > this package has been handed out to this autobuilder for building.
> > >
> > > Valid for the autobuilder the package has been handed to and that send
> > > it in and if the changes file is correct.
> > >
> > > But what if the buildd failed and someone manually build the deb,
> > > signes it and uploads? The debian archive scripts would need a way to
> > > distinguish between autobuild packages and manually build binary-only
> > > uploads.
>
> I don't see why that would be the case. Could you elaborate?
>
> > The archive script would of course continue to accept any deb by any
> > DD under the same conditions as today. The question to the
> > buildd-admins is: How often does this happen?
>
> Hardly ever, if at all. Most "manual" bin-NMU's are done by people that
> are not buildd admins.
I don't understand what you mean. Perhaps it would be best if I try to
rephrase my ideas:
The archive scripts accept a package currently if the following
conditions are met:
* There is an signed changes file for the debs by a DD
These would be harded to the following:
* There is an signed changes file for the debs by a DD
* The debs are signed
- by an DD
or
- by an buildd, if this buildd was the one to build this package.
So, the archive scripts don't distinguish between autobuild packages
and manually build binary-only packages, but they look at the debs,
and verify the signature. If the signature is by a DD, everything is
ok. If the signature is by a buildd, they verify that the buildd had
had an job to build this deb.
Ok?
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Reply to: