On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 01:02:29PM +0100, Arno Töll wrote:
> Hint: gpg --list-keys --with-colons --keyring
> /usr/share/keyrings/debian-keyring.gpg --no-default-keyring
No need, I have 'keyring /usr/share/keyrings/debian-keyring.gpg' in my
~/.gnupg/gpg.conf.
> Not sure though, why nion is listed
On 06.12.2012 12:44, Jon Dowland wrote:
> I've just learned that my key is uniquely identifyable by the last three
> bytes within (and only within) the current debian-keyring
>
>> $ gpg --list-keys --with-colons|grep AAA:
>> pub:u:4096:1:0907409606AA:2009-09-14:::u:Jon Dowland
>> ::scESC:
I'
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 09:53:41AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> Anything less than the full fingerprint (8, 7 or whatever)
I hadn't noticed that 0xFEFACED was only 7 characters. That's cheating ☺
It might be worth noting that GPG does not accept less than 8 chars as an
argument prefixed by 0x
> $ g
On 06.12.2012 02:53, Paul Wise wrote:
> Anything less than the full fingerprint (8, 7 or whatever) should be
> considered ambiguous[1]. If there are multiple keys matching the
> partial fingerprint (of any size), that should be an error. I don't
> think a partial fingerprint that is 7 characters lo
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 4:02 AM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> While the traceback is ugly, that's valid. Note 0xDEFACED isn't 8 long,
> it's 7. Even though it's unlikely we'd get that key, I figured the DD
> would use a UID that's valid.
Anything less than the full fingerprint (8, 7 or whatever) shou
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 08:41:07PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 04.12.2012, 10:01 -0500 schrieb Paul Tagliamonte:
> > Advantages
> > --
> > * dcut support, including management of DM permissions [4]
>
> I wanted to play with DM permission support and tried an example fr
Am Dienstag, den 04.12.2012, 10:01 -0500 schrieb Paul Tagliamonte:
> Advantages
> --
> * dcut support, including management of DM permissions [4]
I wanted to play with DM permission support and tried an example from
the man page of dcut (adding -O test):
$ dcut dm --dm 0xDEFACED --allow
On Tue, 2012-12-04 at 10:01 -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
[...]
> * We deliberately do not support some rare dput configuration settings
> by design choice. In particular, dinstall post-upload support, and
> rsync based uploads (which eventually is a special treatment of SCP
> upload
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 01:19:28AM +0100, Mike Gabriel wrote:
> Hi Paul,
Heyya, Mike,
>
> Note that finally Python Paramiko has a new upstream[1]. Code gets
> developed on Github[2]. You might want to file an issue about
> Python3 compatibility there.
>
> Greets,
> Mike
>
> [1] http://bitproph
On Dec 05, 2012, at 01:19 AM, Mike Gabriel wrote:
>Note that finally Python Paramiko has a new upstream[1]. Code gets developed
>on Github[2]. You might want to file an issue about Python3 compatibility
>there.
Good to hear about Paramiko. There's already a Python 3 issue open:
https://github.c
Hi Paul,
On Di 04 Dez 2012 23:16:17 CET Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 11:00:35PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 04.12.2012, 15:07 -0500 schrieb Paul Tagliamonte:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 02:58:54PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > On Dec 04, 2012, at 02:29 PM, P
On 04.12.2012 20:40, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
>> What are the chances of dput-ng becoming available in backports (well, once
>> we
>> release, backported to wheezy at least)?
>
> Erm, I failed to parse this correctly, as RoboTux pointed out to me.
Thing is, we as dput authors would be perfectly f
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 11:00:35PM +0100, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 04.12.2012, 15:07 -0500 schrieb Paul Tagliamonte:
> > On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 02:58:54PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > > On Dec 04, 2012, at 02:29 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> > >
> > > >It's currently tied to Pyt
Am Dienstag, den 04.12.2012, 15:07 -0500 schrieb Paul Tagliamonte:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 02:58:54PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > On Dec 04, 2012, at 02:29 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> >
> > >It's currently tied to Python 2.7 (but not to a very high degree, it's
> > >totally backportable).
>
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 02:58:54PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Dec 04, 2012, at 02:29 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
>
> >It's currently tied to Python 2.7 (but not to a very high degree, it's
> >totally backportable).
>
> Mmm, Python 2. Would the authors be open to a Python 3 port? :)
>
> -Ba
On Dec 04, 2012, at 02:29 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
>It's currently tied to Python 2.7 (but not to a very high degree, it's
>totally backportable).
Mmm, Python 2. Would the authors be open to a Python 3 port? :)
-Barry
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 06:35:49PM +, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > As we recently announced [1], we have been working on a complete
> > re-implementation of dput [2]. As of today, the package is available in
> > Debian Unstable [3] ready for early adoptors.
> >
> [...]
>
> What are
On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 06:35:49PM +, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > As we recently announced [1], we have been working on a complete
> > re-implementation of dput [2]. As of today, the package is available in
> > Debian Unstable [3] ready for early adoptors.
> >
> [...]
>
> What are the
Hi,
> As we recently announced [1], we have been working on a complete
> re-implementation of dput [2]. As of today, the package is available in
> Debian Unstable [3] ready for early adoptors.
>
[...]
What are the chances of dput-ng becoming available in backports (well, once we
release, backpor
Hello fellow Developers,
As we recently announced [1], we have been working on a complete
re-implementation of dput [2]. As of today, the package is available in
Debian Unstable [3] ready for early adoptors.
We'd like to encourage everyone to test the new look and feel of dput,
and, if you're int
20 matches
Mail list logo
