On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Pang Yan Han <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, sorry for the late reply, some family matters cropped up over the > past week. > > Do you think I should reroll this with your suggestions? iirc, the original > intent of this > patch was to allow the user to have a way to have a trustdb.gpg for pacman > to carry > out signature verification and to change it if need be.
If it isn't too much trouble I would say go for it- I think this is a valuable option, it just needed some touchups in the implementation. -Dan
