On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 09:55:57AM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> I'm sure that the intentions are good, but Joerg has a point about these
> three DM's. Maybe it is better to replace these three DM registrations
> in the DM keyring by three artificial DM's owned by DD's.
For the record, the code for this was tested first by limiting my own
key to only have DM rights for some months.
The limitations inherent in separating keys/rights for DMs include:
- not having the same key being a DD and DM
- not having a DD and DM with the same name
- having the DM's name from the gpg key be included in the
Uploaders: field
I don't think having dummy uploads introducing made up names into
Uploaders fields is a great idea, and limiting testing to DDs means you
don't get reports of things that are obvious to DDs but aren't for people
who've never uploaded before.
> Then nobody
> can complain about real DM's already being added without following the
> rules.
Joerg's already made other complaints of that form:
19:25 <Ganneff> aj: wasnt there a "dont accept your own package"?
19:27 <Ganneff> (i know, i violated that myself already).
19:28 <Ganneff> gpg --list-keys in build without gnupghome.
as buildd maintainer i would file rc bugs.
19:31 <aj> good thing arch:all packages aren't build on buildds then? ffs
I don't think any solution short of "revert the GR entirely" would
stop those complaints -- and in turn is why they're correlated with the
original votes.
Cheers,
aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature