X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0	tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX18Tf+0KcbnIVnw6HxZk8saE
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:16:08 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@cygwin.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Trusted Software Vendor
Message-ID: <20120612131608.GA18920@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
References: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAAH3PqnIBVHtCiVMVjN0ExZLigAAAEAAAAJXIkaLIcH5Pn+g+gRSa2KoBAAAAAA==@expertise.cl> <20120608184641.GA13771@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <4FD32DC5.10703@gmail.com> <20120609155700.GA21988@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <4FD73CC9.3070501@etr-usa.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4FD73CC9.3070501@etr-usa.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie.com@cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@cygwin.com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 06:57:45AM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
>On 6/9/2012 9:57 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>and I'm really not willing to burden cygwin.com with the cycles
>>necessary to unpack tarballs at cygwin.com to sign them.
>
>Based on the traffic I see to cygwin-apps, my sense is that this would
>amount to single-digit CPU-minutes per day, once you get through the
>initial conversion.  That can be nice'd to the point that it takes a
>month; this doesn't have to be a Big Bang conversion.
>
>I think a much bigger problem is getting a Linux toolchain set up on
>the main package repo server that can sign these executables.  My
>Google-fu says the GNU tools have no idea how to do this today.
>
>Then someone has to spend at least a few hours writing and testing the
>script to do all this.  It might take a person-day.

If you are working under the misapprehension that I don't understand
what's required to get this to work, I can assure you that you're wrong.

>Red Hat might not have to buy a code signing cert for this.  They might 
>already have one that will work: http://goo.gl/5Hm3C

The Cygwin project is not Red Hat.  It wouldn't be "Red Hat" buying
anything.

cgf

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

