On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Andrei Thorp<garoth@gmail.com> wrote:

Excerpts from Aaron Griffin's message of Mon Aug 10 12:02:25 -0400 2009:

...

Hello TUs, The last little part of the "official tool" transition is getting you all accounts of the dev dashboard at https://dev.archlinux.org/devel/

In order to do this, I need to go through and add accounts for you all.

So I would like you to send me an email (private) containing: Real Name Alias Email address jabber/IRC nicks Website URLs Occupation Year of Birth Geographic Location Languages Known General Interests Favorite Distros A picture if you have one (See http://www.archlinux.org/developers/)

With this info, I will begin the slow process of adding accounts. After I add each one, I will send you an email with your password which you will need to change.

...

From here, you will be able to adopt packages from the web interface (you will need to use dev.archlinux.org to do this), and get out of date notifications

Additionally, we have setup a private notification list for orphans which are out of date, as well as the integrity check and cleanup emails. This is not fully complete, but I will point you to this list when I send the password. The reason it is a private list is that "out of date" notifications contain private email addresses, and we don't want them indexed.

Let me know if there's anything else I can do.

Now we just need to get viewvc working :roll:

- Aaron

You're probably aware of this, but Firefox complains about an invalid security certificate on that site. Just fyi.

It's not invalid, it's self-signed, so there's no certificate authority stamp-of-approval on it. We had a free year certificate at one point, but decided not to waste the money for a real certificate if it's only used by the devs.

Aaron Griffin wrote: [..]

It's not invalid, it's self-signed, so there's no certificate authority stamp-of-approval on it. We had a free year certificate at one point, but decided not to waste the money for a real certificate if it's only used by the devs.

One option would be getting one from CACert.org. Of course it won't be worth a lot without putting their root cert in openssl/firefox/konquerer/epiphany/etc... /M -- Magnus Therning (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus identi.ca|twitter: magthe

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Magnus Therning<magnus@therning.org> wrote:

Aaron Griffin wrote: [..]

...

It's not invalid, it's self-signed, so there's no certificate authority stamp-of-approval on it. We had a free year certificate at one point, but decided not to waste the money for a real certificate if it's only used by the devs.

One option would be getting one from CACert.org.  Of course it won't be worth a lot without putting their root cert in openssl/firefox/konquerer/epiphany/etc...

We looked into that, but that's not much better than a self signed cert. We discussed this at length among the devs, and already made a decision. We're well aware of all the options :)

Le Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:07:24 -0500, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> a écrit :

We looked into that, but that's not much better than a self signed cert. We discussed this at length among the devs, and already made a decision. We're well aware of all the options :)

It is also not easy to get a certificate from CACert for anything else than an individual, but it can be done. Anyway, I am a CACert assurer (who doesn't have many points yet, but still...) and I know a few others so if you happen to need a certificate you can I can try to help. I also agree with Aaron: a self-signed certificate is good enough if the application is to be used by a few identified people only. If they want to check the authenticity of the certificate they just need to ask somebody else to send them the original... -- catwell