Re: [Gnu-arch-users] crypto signing take 2

[Tom Lord]

    > From: Robert Collins <address@hidden>

    > > As I said -- this really doesn't belong in the hooks.
    > > Will it be difficult to correct?

    > It shouldn't be, although I cannot work on it today. I'm off to a
    > customer site, and from there to see some live comedy.

Sounds fun.

    > I've deliberately taken a worse-is-better approach doing this - to get
    > firstly, to move it out of hook (I'm glad to see your initial indecision
    > on IRC has solidified ;)) will be as easy as rewriting whatever
    > machinery is in run_hook.

Yeah, that part is easy.


    > secondly, to move it into the pfs layer /guarantees/ violating the
    > current pfs abstraction. (I wanted to chat with you on IRC, but ...).=20
    > pfs.* doesn't know archive name that it's working on, and thus cannot
    > select the script to run. Thats why selected files are signed, not all
    > files.

So, as I said in the other message -- it's a serendipitous turn of
events that this wound up in archive-pfs.c rather than pfs.c anyway
simply because we really need to be signing the aggregate of the files
in a revision (along with the revision name) rather than the
individual files.

    > Anyhoo, I have to pass the baton on the gpg code at this point.. I doubt
    > I'll be able to get back to it until next weekend, and I'd hate to see
    > it start idling.

Ok.  Thanks.

-t