On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Peter Jones wrote: > On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 17:34 -0600, Satish Balay wrote: > > Ok - you & Seth seem to have a solution to the problem. > > > > Still no good explanation why ALL keys should be treated the same. > > Because there's nothing about a key that tells you how to treat it. Thats because the 'user' decides how to use the key - and had a choice to differenciate. > > To me 'rehdat-key' is different from 'linva-key' etc. And I think > > rawhide can do the same. > > > > The analogy I keep thinking is 'my signature' is differnet than > > 'RedHat's CEO's signature' treating both to mean the same is nuts.. > > But the signature isn't different in kind. You just "know" which > documents one is good on and which one isn't. But we don't have that > kind of knowledge for all keys. We don't know which repositories each > key is good for what on, and making the infrastructure to tell that > about keys is a lot of work. Making the infrastructure for a key to > sign something which tells us is significantly easier, I think. Ok - here you want the key to carry additional pay-load - and the infracture tools automatically use/manage this info. But I'm thinking the user manages keys - and assigns meaning to it. For eg: I'd like to be able to say: - if updates signed with 'fedora.us-key' give me a big fat warning. - if update signed with 'fedora.us-key' && foo-bar-key - go ahead and install. (where foo-bar user contributed that package to fedora.us) I guess both modes should be possible. Satish