On Di, 2008-04-01 at 10:44 +0200, Daniel Schierbeck wrote: > On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 00:02 +0200, Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > > I've just added some code that makes us skip the revision tab if the gpg > > executable wasn't found. > > > > What else should be fixed before the signatures branch can be merged? > Well, if it works, then I think we should merge. Could I either get any > of you to start signing your revisions, or just report how my signatures > show up? I'd like to try the case of a revision with an untrusted > signature. Currently I can only see my own (bzr.dev seems not to work), > so that covers only unsigned and signed by trusted key. I've signed some of my revisions but bzr doesn't seem to fill in signatures unless the revision they sign is also being pulled in :-( FWIW, some of my revisions in bzr-svn are signed.
> Btw, I've been working with the (almost completely undocumented) > Seahorse D-Bus API, and I've got key verification working[1]! Now I'm > just looking at displaying the trust level. We may even be able to set > it directly from the revision view! > > I'd still love some Python bindings for libcryptui, their widget > library, though. > > 1. <lp:~bzr-gtk/bzr-gtk/seahorse-integration> Nice! Cheers, Jelmer -- Jelmer Vernooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://samba.org/~jelmer/ Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- bzr-gtk mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.canonical.com/mailman/listinfo/bzr-gtk
