290 entries in 0.657s
bvt: ty; i wanted to download them via wget on remote machine, discovered bunch of
.sig.1 files
mircea_popescu: ckanggirl i find your fore..
.sight perfectly acceptable.
a111: Logged on 2018-03-15 00:44 hanbot: phf fwiw btcbase.org/data/vtools/vtools_vdiff_sha.vpatch.phf
.sig 404s
hanbot: phf fwiw btcbase.org/data/vtools/vtools_vdiff_sha.vpatch.phf
.sig 404s
☟︎ mircea_popescu: see, the SELECTION of
.sigs you see is not promised to cover the whole space!
a111: Logged on 2017-12-07 11:24 mircea_popescu: mod6 mind adding the "no clearsigned material in patches -- you got the
.sig for that" and "no '--- ' anywhere, you have been warned" rules to it ; and phf / everyone mind making it stick ?
mircea_popescu: diana_coman you'd make a new genesis, for eucrypt, and patch it with mpi. this patch will share no
.sigs with the other mpi it is text-identical to
mircea_popescu: mod6 mind adding the "no clearsigned material in patches -- you got the
.sig for that" and "no '--- ' anywhere, you have been warned" rules to it ; and phf / everyone mind making it stick ?
☟︎ mircea_popescu: they utterly don't belong there. you got a
.sig mechanism for this.
ben_vulpes: por favor, output de: gpg --verify .seals/asciilifeform_add_verifyall_option.vpatch.ben_vulpes
.sig patches/asciilifeform_add_verifyall_option.vpatch
CluelessNoob: WARNING: asciilifeform_add_verifyall_option.vpatch.ben_vulpes
.sig is an INVALID seal for asciilifeform_add_verifyall_option.vpatch!
jurov: um..
.signing that would be problematic, then
a111: Logged on 2016-08-07 18:22 hanbot: so in V99995 testing, it'd seem the asciilifeform_add_verifyall_option.vpatch.asciilifeform
.sig is "invalid", i imagine 'cause of something to do with stan's old key? and deedbot only spits the current, which i have. i don't see the old one on btcalpha either, anyone have an idea fo' me?
mircea_popescu: in case not found yet : "mod6
.sig\n\n\nT" vs ".mod6
.sig</a>\n\nT"
a111: Logged on 2017-04-24 06:12 pete_dushenski: "WARNING: asciilifeform_blackhole_reads.vpatch.asciilifeform
.sig is an INVALID seal for asciilifeform_blackhole_reads.vpatch!" << anyone else seen this error ? my vtron is barfing this up even though my gpgtron says it's a good sig.
a111: Logged on 2017-04-24 06:12 pete_dushenski: "WARNING: asciilifeform_blackhole_reads.vpatch.asciilifeform
.sig is an INVALID seal for asciilifeform_blackhole_reads.vpatch!" << anyone else seen this error ? my vtron is barfing this up even though my gpgtron says it's a good sig.
pete_dushenski: "WARNING: asciilifeform_blackhole_reads.vpatch.asciilifeform
.sig is an INVALID seal for asciilifeform_blackhole_reads.vpatch!" << anyone else seen this error ? my vtron is barfing this up even though my gpgtron says it's a good sig.
☟︎☟︎ mod6: So basically, the deal is, that when using TRB, I have one user in my wot, say "mod6", and I drop out a vpatch from the flow, say "asciilifeform_dnsseed_snipsnip.vpatch" by moving it's seal to "asciilifeform_dnsseed_snipsnip.vpatch.mod6
.sig.foobar", then I expected a few things to happen.
ben_vulpes: mircea_popescu: would you humor me and upload a genesis.vpatch.mircea_popescu
.sig and let me know what your mp_wp does?
mod6: <+ben_vulpes> no, that's death() ing on a patch for which the system had valid seals, yours and mine. << this i dont agree with -- from a technical perspective. it looks to me that girl had "ascii and mod6" in .wot, and when it came across Mr. P.'s genesis
.sig, it honked.
mod6: what I should do, is ignore that sig, and continue iterating, collecting up all of the mod6
.sigs and then creating a v-tree from just those alone.
a111: Logged on 2016-01-18 15:35 ascii_butugychag: jurov: theoretically you can avoid using the name prior to
.sig, but then you have to check ALL seals agains ALL patches ALWAYS and this is O(N^2)