On 27.08.2012 20:02, Jim Jagielski wrote:
And so I get back to my question... How is this new "requirement" substantially
different from the kind of signing we do today?
My mother could do one but not the other.
-Andre
And please notice the word "substantially".
On Aug 27, 2012, at 1:52 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote:
There is a missing distinction here.
The discussion about signed binaries is not about external signatures of the
kind used by release managers and others, nor about the external digests and
signatures that might be obtained in conjunction with a download.
The signing of code that I am talking about, and that others are talking about
(at least in part), has to do with embedded signatures that consumer operating
systems notice and check and that are part of the artifact. These signatures
are used (and typically required for application certification) by Microsoft,
Apple, Adobe, and others. The requirement for them is not decreasing.
The discussion with regard to trust and the presumed reputation of the signer
has merit, but it is not satisfied by external signatures in the case of
download distributions to modern consumer platforms.
- Dennis
PS: I love it that when recognized authorities ask that a discussion be moved
off of a particular list and then everyone piles on that list with a vengeance.
This message is *not* being copied to general@ i.a.o.
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Schaefer [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 10:07
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
Which better agrees with written policy anyway- the sigs
are part of the release package to be voted on and voted on
by the PMC, so even tho it constitutes individual sigs
those sigs (well at least the RM's sig) are PMC-approved.
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Stein <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 1:03 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
On Aug 27, 2012 9:57 AM, "Jim Jagielski" <[email protected]>
wrote:
...
But recall in all this that even when the PMC releases code, it is
signed by the individual RM, and not by the PMC itself.
Apache Subversion releases tend to have a half-dozen signatures. Thus, I'd
say they are signed by the PMC. For example:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/subversion/subversion-1.7.6.tar.bz2.asc
Cheers,
-g
