Re: [Bacula-devel] contributed rpm packages

[Scott B. <sco...@co...>]

On Sat, 2006-08-19 at 12:31 +0200, Felix Schwarz wrote:
> Scott Barninger wrote:
> >>From a practical standpoint, it makes no difference where on the system
> > you install a key file, it has to be imported into rpm anyway using 'rpm
> > --import' to have any effect. If you do 'rpm -qi rpmkey-fschwartz' after
> > installing it, it will give you explicit instructions how to do so.
> > Thoughts?
> 
> While I agree that it won't have that big implications, I like the /etc/pki
> thing - mainly because Red Hat uses it on its platforms.
> 
> I don't think that the changes needed to support different paths are too big. I
> changed the spec so that the file name is encapsulated in a parameter (see
> attached file).
> 
> Furthermore I changed the source file name not to end with ".asc" as the general
> practise in the Red Hat world seems to be to use ascii armored gpg keys. Is this
> different for SuSe? (I don't mind at all if you don't like this so feel free
> changing it.)
> 
> After all the whole path thing is not a big story, so please just decide if
> bacula rpms should use distribution specific paths for the gpg keys.

Well, everyone is different as I said. SuSE puts key files
in /usr/lib/rpm/gnupg. Redhat as you say in /etc/pki. Mandriva I can't
figure out where. Redhat calls the file RPM-GPG-KEY-*, Mandriva calls
them gpg-pubkey-* and SuSE *.asc or *.gpg.

So what I think is this. We move everything into a bacula specific
location, something like /etc/bacula/pubkeys. There we will locate the
bacula distribution key and any contributor keys. I would also like to
stick with ascii key files because I want to release the key file
directly as well as the rpm like we do with the bacula key.