sks-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Sks-devel] Min. Requirement for SKS Version in the Pool


From: Andy Ruddock
Subject: Re: [Sks-devel] Min. Requirement for SKS Version in the Pool
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:38:56 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20120603 Iceape/2.0.11

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

I'm one of those keyserver operators who's on the sks-devel list.

My keyserver is running on Debian stable, I'm loathe to start
installing/upgrading packages from outside of the Debian repositories.

One of the main reasons for running Linux (practically any distro) is
that all software can be installed & updated from the repositories
without having to check umpteen packages for updates every day,
downloading and updating/installing from umpteen sources.

A package being in Debian unstable really doesn't count - I don't even
run Sid on my desktop, let alone on a server.

If the version number requirements for being in the keyserver pool is
greater than that provided in the repositories then the package may just
as well not be in the repositories at all.

Will every distro (of those that have sks in their repositories) be
carrying versions greater than 1.1.1?

Brian D Heaton wrote:
> Kristian,
>
> Would it be a good idea to contact the operators of keyservers running
> versions prior to v1.1.3 and let them know about this coming change and
> perhaps get them to upgrade?  I'm guessing a great number of the
> keyserver operators are not on the sks-devel list.
>
>> As of *7. July 2012* I intend to change the minimum version for
>> qualification in the pool to 1.1.2, which would currently mean that
>> the number of servers in the pool will be 33 (although I expect more
>> servers to be upgrade by this time, one of the reasons being that
>> 1.1.3 is now available in the Debian repository).
>>
>> As of *1. August 2012* I intend to change the minimum version for
>> qualification in the pool to 1.1.3.
>>
>> If there are strong objections to these changes, please let me know
>> before the aforementioned dates.

- -- 
Andy Ruddock
- ------------
address@hidden (GPG Key ID 0xB0324245)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=nfeh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]