[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: mini-dinstall, repository signing and apt-get authentication



Cameron> Are you completely against using tools to make your life
Cameron> easier?  You're saying you want it to be less complicated, but
Cameron> you're already over-complicating it by not using tools others
Cameron> have built for exactly this situation. 

My beef is that the docs are in terms of the (pre-signing) primitives,
and nowhere does it say "You cannot do this anymore with the new
apt/with signing."  If I was told like this by, e.g., the manpage of
dpkg-scanpackages or apt-ftparchive, I would have migrated at some
point.

Cameron> dupload just automates the scp to a server and allows you to do
Cameron> more with it.

Yeah, but more is not always better :-(

dupload requires me to make a .changes file.  I'd rather not have these
overpopulating the source area.

Also, to have the one-step process you describe, I either have to be root
or give myself write permissions to the archive.  Currently I do the build
as myself but the remote part as root.

Cameron> So stick with non-SecureApt for your simple situation, or use
Cameron> the advanced tools to get an advanced situation (which is IMO
Cameron> less complicated).

I would, except that every time I make an update aptitude gives me a
red fat warning "Untrusted version of packages will be installed."
I don't see a way of turning that off.

Cameron> If you're completely against using the tools, but must have
Cameron> SecureApt, why not post a link to your repository and we can
Cameron> help diagnose the problem you're having. I'd be willing to take
Cameron> a look at it to see where the errors are coming from (I'm no
Cameron> apt expert, but I've had to diagnose similar problems in the
Cameron> past).

Thank you sincerely for your offer.  To do this safely I need to
actually open the http port for you, and mail you the link privately.
Can you privately email me a source IP range to open it for?

-- 
This line is completely ham.



Reply to: