Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:51:55 +0000, Roger Leigh > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Marc Haber writes: >>>> So, most of the DD's do not care about security at all. >>> >>> I think that DD's do not use dpkg-sig and debsigs because they believe them >>> to be hard to use and not supported by the infrastructure or by policy. >> >>ACK. I certainly care about security, and I'll sign my packages just >>as soon as debsign supports it. > > So you wouldn't use dpkg-sig even if it were still supported by the > archive?
I think these are bogus questions. I am a complete non-expert in these security things. I am sure that if the project comes to the conclusion that signing debs is a good thing, more people will do it irrespective of how convenient the procedure is in the beginning. If it finds its way into the Developer's Reference, even more will use it (and start integrating it into debsign or whatever). To me, it's not a question of whether it's easy to use, but rather whether I can be convinced that it is worth it. So far, I could not draw any conclusion from this discussion - both the counter and the pro arguments contain some truth, and uneducated as I am I cannot judge at the moment. However, if there was no technical reason to reject signed binary packages, it seems to me as if making that change to DAK is an abuse of ftpmaster's powers: This is a design decision, and it should be made after thorough public discussion, either by finding a consensus or by using our constitutional means of making a decision. Changes should not be made in advance, except if there is an unrelated technical reason (I don't know whether this is the case). Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer