See below.

-- 
Evan Phoenix // e...@fallingsnow.net


On Thursday, May 26, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Grant Olson wrote:

> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Evan Phoenix <e...@fallingsnow.net 
> (mailto:e...@fallingsnow.net)> wrote:
> > > If the ruby standard library can deal with the public key signing (RSA
> > > and DSA) and hash functions (SHA series, and possibly MD5, RIPEMD160) it
> > > would be possible to write a full ruby implemenatation that can process
> > > OpenPGP files, but that's a lot of work, and prone to errors.
> > While it is going to be more work, it's the only solution that really
> makes any sense. We simply can't introduce pgp/gpg as a platform dependency.
> 
> Fair enough. I'll look into exactly how hairy this will be.
> 
> But for now, let's go under the assumption that I write a plugin for
> rubygems. Not part of the base system. This plugin allows you to sign
> and verify gems, and does require a working gpg installation. Only
> people who care about software verification install it and use it. And
> then in the year 2013 or 2038 or whatever, there's a pure ruby version
> of the back end crypto stuff and we merge the code with rubygems.
You're free to write a rubygems plugin, of course. Avoiding monkey patching 
methods within rubygems though, since there is no promise those will continue 
to work.

I can't promise anything about a merge unless we see the actual code.

> 
> 1) Is the gpg requirement still a dealbreaker in this scenario?
Yep, still a deal breaker, Sorry. No external dependency. 
> 
> 2) Does rubygems do any verification of the contents? Will a few extra
> files in the main .tgz flag the gem as invalid?
There is verification it parts, but I don't recall if it rejects .gem's with 
extra data in them. I suggest you give it a try and let us know though before 
you build a whole system.
> 
> 3) Is there interest in a simulated CA at a site like rubygems, as
> described in the original post?
Do you mean X509 CA (I assume so)? In which case, yes, a rubygems/rubycentral 
CA is something that has been discussed. 
> 
> -- 
> Grant
> _______________________________________________
> Rubygems-developers mailing list
> http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems
> Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org (mailto:Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org)
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers


_______________________________________________
Rubygems-developers mailing list
http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems
Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers

Reply via email to