unofficial packages

[Robert Collins]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson@ece.gatech.edu>
To: "Robert Collins" <robert.collins@syncretize.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: unofficial packages


> Robert Collins wrote:

> > Yes, this requires documenting who maintains packges, but it doesn't
have to
> > be easily available to end users (i.e. the user interface doesn't have
to
> > expose it).
>
>
> Hmmm...so *setup* would have to know who maintains what, as far as
> official packages go.  Now, this can't be compiled-into the executable;
> it has to be distributed from the mirrors.  Are you thinking encryption?
>   'cause that's pointless -- the decryption key has to be bound into
> setup.exe; thus, available from setup's sources.

No, I'm think it's part of the setup.bz2 file. It's not like folk need to
read that themselves, and as you say, cygwin-announce already documents
every maintainer. And we could do something like:

Give every official maintainer an @cygwin.com address, and those addresses
point straight into cygwin@cygwin.com for maintainers that object to private
mail.

This means that:
gpg can validate cwilson@cygwin.com on the key chain.
No one knows your personal email.

Thoughts?

Rob