On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 12:07:36PM +0100, Bill Crawford wrote: > On 09/09/2008, David Shaw <dshaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I'm one of the GnuPG developers, and as such, a copy of my key is in > > /usr/share/doc/gnupg-1.4.x/samplekeys.asc on any system that has > > gnupg-1.4 installed. It's a key that many (most?) Fedora users > > already have, and had before this current problem even started. This > > doesn't mean people should necessarily trust my key, of course, but it > > does serve as a pretty effective pre-distributed key that can be > > leveraged for this as its very wide distribution would make it > > difficult to replace out from under someone without the mischief being > > very visible (much the same argument that also holds for the new > > package signing key, of course, except that my key is already widely > > distributed). > > > > As luck has it, I work around half an hour away from the Red Hat > > Massachusetts office. > > Now that, seems like a really good idea :o) > > How about you sign, e.g. Jesse's key (if he's willing)? I'm happy to exchange signatures with Jesse or anyone else in the Boston area. To be clear, though: I don't want to give the impression that I think the release plan is not sufficient. I think it's about as good as it can be given the facts of how RPM does key management. Any additional signatures on the package signing key are just a nice bonus for those who want to do additional checks. David -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
