On 26 May 2013 09:53, Mechtilde wrote:
> Hello Andrea,
>
> Am 26.05.2013 00:07, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> > janI wrote:
> >> in all fairness jsc and rob have worked with this for over a
> >> year, so it would be more fair to have them do it, and I do not want to
> >> come "in between".
> >
> > T
Hello Andrea,
Am 26.05.2013 00:07, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> janI wrote:
>> in all fairness jsc and rob have worked with this for over a
>> year, so it would be more fair to have them do it, and I do not want to
>> come "in between".
>
> This is a good summary written by Juergen:
> http://wiki.a
janI wrote:
in all fairness jsc and rob have worked with this for over a
year, so it would be more fair to have them do it, and I do not want to
come "in between".
This is a good summary written by Juergen:
http://wiki.apache.org/general/ASFCodeSigning
Note that at FOSDEM we were (inconclusive
; >>
> >> >> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Rob Weir
> wrote:
> >> >>> On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 5:01 PM, janI wrote:
> >> >>>> On 24 May 2013 22:30, Juergen Schmidt
> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>&g
;>>>> (as
>> >>>>>> I did today on IRC) if we do not formulate our requirements very
>> clearly.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> decisions are made on mailing li
On 25 May 2013 18:01, Mechtilde wrote:
> Hello Jan,
>
> can you give me a short description what we/you need and what are the
> problems with apache infrastructure.
>
I could, but in all fairness jsc and rob have worked with this for over a
year, so it would be more fair to have them do it, and
> Apache, what not happened on a mailing list, is not relevant ;-)
> >>>>> Well it seems that infra is always special.
> >>>>> I tried several times to discuss it on the infra mailing list and I
> >>>>> believe I have described ver
e would have a cert. I also proposed a solution that
>>>>> can
>>>>> work from my point of view and I started to collect the info on a wiki
>>>>> page
>>>>> as suggested.
>>>>> There might be other solutions to do it but I ha
Hello Jan,
can you give me a short description what we/you need and what are the
problems with apache infrastructure.
I'm not so familar with the apache infrastructure to understand all
things of the thread.
Then I will give this information to people who are familar with
organisation assurance
On 25 May 2013 15:31, Mechtilde wrote:
> Hello,
>
> what about an organisation assurance by Cacert.
>
> At FOSDEM 2013 there are some discussions with people from cacert.
>
> If you need more informations and contacts I will act as an agent.
>
If you can get some information, I would like to read
Hello,
what about an organisation assurance by Cacert.
At FOSDEM 2013 there are some discussions with people from cacert.
If you need more informations and contacts I will act as an agent.
Let me know
Kind regards
Mechtilde
Am 25.05.2013 15:22, schrieb janI:
> On 25 May 2013 12:04, Andrea P
On 25 May 2013 12:04, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Dave Fisher wrote:
>
>> The main concern that the ASF has with digitally signing with a
>> singular apache.org certificate for the whole foundation is keeping
>> it in strict control. For some this means physical machines. This is
>> a high bar.
>> I
Dave Fisher wrote:
The main concern that the ASF has with digitally signing with a
singular apache.org certificate for the whole foundation is keeping
it in strict control. For some this means physical machines. This is
a high bar.
I wonder if the ASF would allow AOO to experiment with an
OpenOff
ert. I also proposed a solution that can
>>>> work from my point of view and I started to collect the info on a wiki page
>>>> as suggested.
>>>> There might be other solutions to do it but I have no in place and nobody
>>>> convinced me that my prop
t; There might be other solutions to do it but I have no in place and nobody
>>> convinced me that my proposed approach can not work.
>>> I agree that it's not easy and I simply have no energy to discuss further
>>> at the moment. I have enough other thing
I simply have no energy to discuss further
>> at the moment. I have enough other things to do.
>>
>> Juergen
>> >
>> > rgds
>> > jan I.
>> >
>> > -- Forwarded message --
>> > From: Scott Deboy
>> > Dat
n I.
> >
> > -- Forwarded message --
> > From: Scott Deboy
> > Date: 24 May 2013 18:59
> > Subject: Re: Official code signing certificate
> > To: infrastructure-...@apache.org
> >
> >
> > Logging Services has a simple requirement
I simply have no energy to discuss further at
the moment. I have enough other things to do.
Juergen
>
> rgds
> jan I.
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Scott Deboy
> Date: 24 May 2013 18:59
> Subject: Re: Official code signing certificate
> To: infr
nclear to Infra? We've been discussing this for more than a year
now, so I'd be surprised if there are any technological questions
remaining at this point.
-Rob
> rgds
> jan I.
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Scott Deboy
> Date: 24 May 2013
Hi.
we are not alone in ASF wishing code signing, but we might get run over (as
I did today on IRC) if we do not formulate our requirements very clearly.
rgds
jan I.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Scott Deboy
Date: 24 May 2013 18:59
Subject: Re: Official code signing certificate
20 matches
Mail list logo
