On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 12:43:26 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
Op maandag 03 oktober 2011 19:48:47 schreef Thijs Kinkhorst:
Hi Kurt,
Op zondag 25 september 2011 17:48:46 schreef Kurt Roeckx:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 01:35:46PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > I also don't understand why they get rejected once the key
> > expired. The signatures are from before the key expired and
> > perfectly valid.
>
> I should probably clarify this. Of course you can't trust that
> the signature wasn't made after the key expired.
Why do these keys expire so quickly? Can't we have a really large
window,
say a year, in which the key stays valid after the date it was last
in
use?
> But we really should have a process so that once it's accepted it
> stays accepted, even when it moves to an other host.
How do you propose we solve this concrete issue?
I prefer that at least the krb5-appl and opensaml2 builds are made
available
before the point release this weekend. Let me know what I can do to
help.
As an additional data point, simply getting the missing builds uploaded
won't currently resolve the issue for either krb5-appl or opensaml2, as
some of the builds already in p-u-NEW are signed by now-expired keys.
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
