Em 09/07/2011 13:26, "Ben Walton" <[email protected]> escreveu: > > Excerpts from Maciej Bliziński's message of Sat Jul 09 06:47:42 -0400 2011: > > Hi Maciej, > > > Yes, here are some more. I like both ideas: the signing system > > initiating the connection (easier to secure it), and the buildfarm > > deciding when to sign. I have two alternative ideas. > > > > 1. The signing system listens, but the handling code is super > > simple, only sets a flag. Then the cron job notices it, and signing > > occurs. > > > > 2. The flag is set on buildfarm side, there is no listener on the > > signing side. > > If I'm reading this correctly, the signature would need to be > deposited by the signing side, which means it needs +w on the catalog > storage area and thus more lockdown. Did I miss your intent?
The signature could be pushed from the signing side to the buildfarm, e.g. using a RESTful interface. The +w would be on the buildfarm side.
_______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
