Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 11:10:29AM +, Magnus Therning wrote:
>> Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 12:26:31PM +, Magnus Therning wrote:
>
>>> I wonder about the latest comment on this thread. Examine why you don't
>>> want the secret key on the
On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 11:10:29AM +, Magnus Therning wrote:
> Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 12:26:31PM +, Magnus Therning wrote:
> > I wonder about the latest comment on this thread. Examine why you don't
> > want the secret key on the build server and why you woul
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 12:26:31PM +, Magnus Therning wrote:
>> At work I want to add signing to our automatic build system. In
>> theory it's a simple application of `gpg` at the end of building to
>> get a detached signature would do, but I'm weary of sticking the
>
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 12:26:31PM +, Magnus Therning wrote:
> At work I want to add signing to our automatic build system. In
> theory it's a simple application of `gpg` at the end of building to
> get a detached signature would do, but I'm weary of sticking the
> secret key on the build serv
On Saturday 06 December 2008, Magnus Therning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
about 'Re: Remote signing of large files':
>Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> Please don't CC me on replies, unless I request one. It is against
>> debian-* list policy.
>
>Sure, and
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 08:21:12PM +0200, subscriptions wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 12:26:31PM +, Magnus Therning wrote:
> > I'd feel a bit more safe if the signing could be done on a separate
> > server. However, the built files are large and I don't want to
> > introduce a bottle ne
Magnus Therning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote
>>> about 'Remote signing of large files':
>>>> So, my idea was to somehow separate the two steps that GnuPG performs
>>>> under the hood when signing, creating the message digest (hash) and
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 12:26:31PM +, Magnus Therning wrote:
> I'd feel a bit more safe if the signing could be done on a separate
> server. However, the built files are large and I don't want to
> introduce a bottle neck by transfering all files back and forth over
> the network.
The above
Osamu Aoki wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 12:26:31PM +, Magnus Therning wrote:
>> At work I want to add signing to our automatic build system. In
>> theory it's a simple application of `gpg` at the end of building to
>> get a detached signature would do, but I'm weary of sticking the
>> secr
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 12:26:31PM +, Magnus Therning wrote:
> At work I want to add signing to our automatic build system. In
> theory it's a simple application of `gpg` at the end of building to
> get a detached signature would do, but I'm weary of sticking the
> secret key on the build serv
Please don't CC me on replies, unless I request one. It is against debian-*
list policy.
On Friday 2008 December 05 15:49, you wrote:
> Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > On Thursday 04 December 2008, "Magnus Therning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote
>
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On Thursday 04 December 2008, "Magnus Therning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> about 'Remote signing of large files':
>> I'd feel a bit more safe if the
>> signing could be done on a separate server. However, the built
On Thursday 04 December 2008, "Magnus Therning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
about 'Remote signing of large files':
>I'd feel a bit more safe if the
>signing could be done on a separate server. However, the built files
>are large and I don't want to intr
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Thomas Karpiniec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Magnus,
>
> Magnus Therning wrote:
>> At work I want to add signing to our automatic build system. In
>> theory it's a simple application of `gpg` at the end of building to
>> get a detached signature would do, but I
Hi Magnus,
Magnus Therning wrote:
> At work I want to add signing to our automatic build system. In
> theory it's a simple application of `gpg` at the end of building to
> get a detached signature would do, but I'm weary of sticking the
> secret key on the build servers. I'd feel a bit more safe
At work I want to add signing to our automatic build system. In
theory it's a simple application of `gpg` at the end of building to
get a detached signature would do, but I'm weary of sticking the
secret key on the build servers. I'd feel a bit more safe if the
signing could be done on a separate
16 matches
Mail list logo