Re: RFS: nautilus-clamscan

2008-06-14 Thread Clement Lorteau
Hello,

I uploaded a new version that has a debian/watch file, per standards
version 3.8.0:
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/n/nautilus-clamscan. Could
you have a look?


> You  can use  "test_files/*" for  debian/nautilus-clamscan.examples.

Is that really needed or is it just for the convenience of the packager?
The packaging script I develop as my understanding of Debian packaging
evolves can't do that. 

> 
> Your GPG  key is not  signed by anyone.  You should try to  meet someone
> that can sign  it, preferably a DD  or someone whose key is  signed by a
> DD. Look at this page:
>  https://nm.debian.org/gpg.php
> 
> If you live in Paris or near Paris, I can sign your key.

I do live near Paris. I'll contact you in private. However, is the key
signing needed for uploading the package? I had 2 versions of another
package uploaded without having to have my key signed.

Thanks for the help,
Clément.

-- 
Clement Lorteau
www.lorteau.fr | launchpad.net/~northern-lights


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée


Re: RFS: nautilus-clamscan

2008-06-14 Thread Richard Hecker

Clement Lorteau wrote:

..

Your GPG  key is not  signed by anyone.  You should try to  meet someone
that can sign  it, preferably a DD  or someone whose key is  signed by a
DD. Look at this page:
 https://nm.debian.org/gpg.php

If you live in Paris or near Paris, I can sign your key.

I do live near Paris. I'll contact you in private. However, is the key 
signing needed for uploading the package? I had 2 versions of another 
package uploaded without having to have my key signed.


If I were intimately familiar with a package and had looked at 
EVERYTHING, I would be comfortable
uploading a package signed with an unverified key.  But that is a lot of 
work (and I am basically

asking everyone to hold me accountable for any problems ;-).

It is much more likely that I would not duplicate someone else's 
effort.  When I decide to accept what
someone else has done, then it become much more important to be able to 
identify that person.  At
the point where I might want to say I got code from someone else, the 
signed key becomes critical.
I could upload a package that was sent with an unverified key, but that 
would speak volumes about
my judgement.  When I sign a package (or another key for that matter), a 
person can rely on my
judgement as input.  I do not promote worthless input.  It should be 
easy to understand why a person
would hesitate to accept an unverified key since it could make their 
judgement worthless.


Richard


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]