Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GNU Arch review - am I accurate?

[James Blackwell]

>> * Is it even slightly plausible to change the default
>>   filename/tagname conventions so arch will
>>   work more easily with common tools (e.g., vi/vim, more, csh,
>>   bash, Windows (it doesn't handle long names well))?
>>   Conventions are so arbitrary, yet the ones arch uses
>>   seem designed to cause unnecessary problems.
>
> Go read the archives. This has been rehashed time and time again -- but
> folks who actually try to use Arch for a while (myself included) tend to
> appreciate the conventions as they stand.

I'm among those that don't. I still consider the poor operation with
some other common tools (namely bash and vim) a thorn in my side.
Powerful people are present that are pushing thier own personal
agendas, making long term decisions that favor some tools and discourage
others.


> Making a practice of changing longstanding conventions easily is also
> not a friendly thing to do with software in production usage.
>
>> * Has anyone thought about the "signing of signing" issue
>
> This is arguably a problem for the underlying crypto subsystem. See
> GnuPG's "web of trust" support.

I don't see how gnupg's web of trust solved the multiple signer
question? 



-- 
James Blackwell      Using I.T. to bring more             570-407-0488
Owner, Inframix      business to your business     http://inframix.com

GnuPG (ID 06357400) AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D  247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400