Re: apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:51:21PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > In mainline, there is a facility for adding new keys to the keyring by >> > updating the apt package. >> >> Which can't be done (

Re: apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:33:37PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > If you have some code which implements this, I will take a look, but this > sort of thing is very awkward to do with gpg, and I don't think that there > is much justification for this level of complexity. The existing scheme is > si

Re: apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 06:26:30PM -0400, sean finney wrote: > istr discussing (or at least thinking to myself) a method of "rolling" > keys, where one key was used to sign another key, which would then > ideally be kept somewhere Safe for the case of unexpected expiration. > this second key could

Re: apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:08:42PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > Which can't be done (savely) if the key is compromised or expires > > before the update (like it does every year). > > If the key is compromised, we lose, no matter what we do. > > I recommend that we create keys which will not e

Re: apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:51:21PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > In mainline, there is a facility for adding new keys to the keyring by > > updating the apt package. > > Which can't be done (savely) if the key is compromised or expires > befor

Re: apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 05:54:53PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote: > On Wednesday 04 May 2005 03:05 pm, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > That is, I would upload apt to experimental, along with > > python-apt+aptitude+synaptic+libapt-pkg-perl+etc.  (versioned as NMUs). > > Then, new versions of these package

Re: apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

On Wednesday 04 May 2005 03:05 pm, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > That is, I would upload apt to experimental, along with > python-apt+aptitude+synaptic+libapt-pkg-perl+etc.  (versioned as NMUs). > Then, new versions of these packages would be uploaded to unstable, which > would supersede the versions I u

Re: apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 10:01:38PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > I have tried in the past to keep an updated apt in experimental, but it's >> > non-trivial because of the dependent packages. >>

Re: apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 10:01:38PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I have tried in the past to keep an updated apt in experimental, but it's > > non-trivial because of the dependent packages. > > So how is the key updating solved now if I may as

Re: apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 05:41:18PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote: > >> By the way... what about updating apt 0.6 in experimental? Matt, any >> plans? Ubuntu ships apt 0.6.35, but Debian still has 0.6.25. > > I have tried in the past to keep an updated

Re: apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 01:10:53PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:28:08PM -0400, sean finney wrote: > > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:05:26PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > > One way around this would be for all of the maintainers of packages > > > depending on apt to agre

Re: apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:28:08PM -0400, sean finney wrote: > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:05:26PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > One way around this would be for all of the maintainers of packages > > depending on apt to agree to a significant version number increment when > > moving to apt 0.6;

Re: apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

hi, On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:05:26PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > One way around this would be for all of the maintainers of packages > depending on apt to agree to a significant version number increment when > moving to apt 0.6; then such versions could remain in experimental without > being

apt in experimental (Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report)

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 05:41:18PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote: > By the way... what about updating apt 0.6 in experimental? Matt, any > plans? Ubuntu ships apt 0.6.35, but Debian still has 0.6.25. I have tried in the past to keep an updated apt in experimental, but it's non-trivial because o

Re: APT 0.6 migration -- second status report

* Florian Weimer wrote: [...] By the way... what about updating apt 0.6 in experimental? Matt, any plans? Ubuntu ships apt 0.6.35, but Debian still has 0.6.25. Norbert -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

APT 0.6 migration -- second status report

A test suite for package validation is now available: Please refer to the README file in this directory for instructions how to use the test suite. The archives in the test suite are automatically generated by a collection of Python scripts. These scripts are