Bug#171241: marked as done (qa.debian.org: attributes revoked GnuPG keys to maintainers)
Your message dated Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:25:12 +0100
with message-id <20030325112510.GI29829@tass.genibel.org>
and subject line Bug#171241: qa.debian.org: attributes revoked GnuPG keys to maintainers
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 30 Nov 2002 11:55:42 +0000
>From netsnipe@debianplanet.org Sat Nov 30 05:55:39 2002
Return-path: <netsnipe@debianplanet.org>
Received: from mail005.syd.optusnet.com.au [210.49.20.136]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18I6Dh-0007GZ-00; Sat, 30 Nov 2002 05:55:37 -0600
Received: from espresso (c17074.mirnd1.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.28.79.187])
by mail005.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id gAUBtYc24841;
Sat, 30 Nov 2002 22:55:34 +1100
Received: from netsnipe by espresso with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 18I6Dc-0004EH-00; Sat, 30 Nov 2002 22:55:32 +1100
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 22:55:32 +1100
From: Andrew Lau <netsnipe@debianplanet.org>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: qa.debian.org: attributes revoked GnuPG keys to maintainers
Message-ID: <20021130115532.GA13137@espresso>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="zhXaljGHf11kAtnf"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-Reportbug-Version: 2.9
Sender: Andrew Lau <netsnipe@debianplanet.org>
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0
tests=PGP_SIGNATURE_2,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT,
USER_AGENT_MUTT,WEIRD_PORT
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
--zhXaljGHf11kAtnf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Package: qa.debian.org
Version: unavailable; reported 2002-11-30
Severity: normal
developer.php on http://qa.debian.org seems to be too agressive in
attributing keys to maintainers. It's even listing revoked keys on the
"Packages overview" pages.
Take a look at my "Packages overview" page [1]. It lists two GPG key
ids for myself, 2E8B68BD & DCFEDB00. The first is valid [2], but
notice that the latter key, DCFEDB00 was revoked almost two years ago
[3]. I've never even signed a package to Debian using that key either.
I believe this a is a bug since it would incorrectly imply to the
viewer of the page that the said developer is still using that GnuPG
key even though it has been revoked.=20
Yours sincerely,
Andrew "Netsnipe" Lau
[1] http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=3Dnetsnipe%40debianplanet.org
[2] http://pgp.dtype.org:11371/pks/lookup?search=3D0x2E8B68BD&op=3Dvindex
[3] http://pgp.dtype.org:11371/pks/lookup?search=3D0xDCFEDB00&op=3Dvindex
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux espresso 2.4.19 #1 Tue Nov 12 23:32:34 EST 2002 i686
Locale: LANG=3DC, LC_CTYPE=3DC
--=20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Andrew "Netsnipe" Lau Computer Science & Student Representaive, UNSW *
* # apt-get into it Debian GNU/Linux Package Maintainer *
* <netsnipe(+)debianplanet.org\0> <alau(+)cse.unsw.edu.au\0> *
* GnuPG 1024D/2E8B68BD 0B77 73D0 4F3B F286 63F1 9F4A 9B24 C07D 2E8B 68BD *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--zhXaljGHf11kAtnf
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE96Kc0myTAfS6LaL0RAmhGAJ0T9o3/WwrkbvT7HWcl46Qqc6/ZeACgoyxY
tmx9IfvpklrPxIP3Hc33nuI=
=bYsc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--zhXaljGHf11kAtnf--
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 171241-done) by bugs.debian.org; 25 Mar 2003 11:25:51 +0000
>From igor@genibel.org Tue Mar 25 05:25:43 2003
Return-path: <igor@genibel.org>
Received: from atoulouse-201-2-1-120.abo.wanadoo.fr (tass.genibel.org) [193.251.11.120]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18xmYo-0004yy-00; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 05:25:43 -0600
Received: from igor by tass.genibel.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 18xmYK-0005EM-00; Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:25:12 +0100
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:25:12 +0100
From: Igor Genibel <igor@genibel.org>
To: Andrew Lau <netsnipe@debianplanet.org>, 171241-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#171241: qa.debian.org: attributes revoked GnuPG keys to maintainers
Message-ID: <20030325112510.GI29829@tass.genibel.org>
References: <20021130115532.GA13137@espresso>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6zdv2QT/q3FMhpsV"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20021130115532.GA13137@espresso>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Delivered-To: 171241-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.1 required=4.0
tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,PGP_SIGNATURE_2,
QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT,
USER_AGENT_MUTT,WEIRD_PORT
version=2.44
X-Spam-Level:
--6zdv2QT/q3FMhpsV
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 10:55:32PM +1100, Andrew Lau wrote:
Hi Andrew,
> Package: qa.debian.org
> Version: unavailable; reported 2002-11-30
> Severity: normal
>=20
> developer.php on http://qa.debian.org seems to be too agressive in
> attributing keys to maintainers. It's even listing revoked keys on the
> "Packages overview" pages.
>=20
> Take a look at my "Packages overview" page [1]. It lists two GPG key
> ids for myself, 2E8B68BD & DCFEDB00. The first is valid [2], but
> notice that the latter key, DCFEDB00 was revoked almost two years ago
> [3]. I've never even signed a package to Debian using that key either.
>=20
> I believe this a is a bug since it would incorrectly imply to the
> viewer of the page that the said developer is still using that GnuPG
> key even though it has been revoked.=20
>=20
> Yours sincerely,
> Andrew "Netsnipe" Lau
>=20
> [1] http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=3Dnetsnipe%40debianplanet.org
> [2] http://pgp.dtype.org:11371/pks/lookup?search=3D0x2E8B68BD&op=3Dvindex
> [3] http://pgp.dtype.org:11371/pks/lookup?search=3D0xDCFEDB00&op=3Dvindex
I released a new version of developer.php that fixes this bus. You can
see your page.
Cheers.
--=20
Igor Genibel=20
http://www.answare.fr/ igor.genibel@eds.com
http://www.tuxfamily.org/ igor@tuxfamily.net
http://people.debian.org/~igenibel igenibel@debian.org
GPG: 1024D/9D735B4F: 4F61 8D8F 05AC 8D2C 5F92 9B99 C44B 0266 9D73 5B4F
--6zdv2QT/q3FMhpsV
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+gDyVxEsCZp1zW08RAtTLAKDIgf45WGGAFTUaiX2aCeB/uSVvogCffZm1
m0msfuxznLb+20nj1xkeAao=
=xRy7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--6zdv2QT/q3FMhpsV--
Reply to: