Hans-Christoph Steiner: > I still strongly disagree. Very very few people care enough to learn a > separate process. For security to be usable, it needs to be as transparent > and automatic as possible. APKs and Android have demonstrated that you can > have this kind of system working well.
Comparing .deb and APKs is misleading when talking of tools. A given .deb will have dependencies. APKs are self-contained. This makes `.deb` hard to use without a repository for anything substantial. I would assume that's why Ubuntu developed the Click package format. > They've made the whole process easier by requiring the upstream > developer be the manager of the signing. I think setting up a similar > role in Debian will be quite beneficial, and dak and the package > maintainer are natural roles to be the signer. With the current .buildinfo signing scheme, we require the Debian maintainer to provide a package that can be built reproducibly. Then we can require a proof of that reproducibility from the maintainer, any other maintainers, and any number of buildds. These assessments that a build can be properly reproduced can come after the initial upload. We can only do that if the .deb files do not change after they hits the archive. -- Lunar .''`. lu...@debian.org : :Ⓐ : # apt-get install anarchism `. `'` `-
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducibleemail@example.com http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds