[slf4j-user] Signatures for verifying Slf4j

Sat May 8 20:40:07 CEST 2010

On 08.05.2010, at 20:08, Jeff Jensen wrote:

> Great!  Glad the reply helped you and it works for you (hopefully Ceki will do same :-). (note it is a Sonatype article, not mine!)
>  

Ah, ok, I thought you wrote it and were one of them...

> Regarding the plugin property names, yes it is a little misleading with the short name given in the table (it’s actually the property name in the Java file).  The “Parameter Details” section lists the full property name expression to use; hopefully you discovered that quickly!
>  
> Thanks for the gpg2 info.  I added a little doc note from your statements:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/maven/plugins/trunk/maven-gpg-plugin/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/plugin/gpg/AbstractGpgMojo.java?view=diff&r1=942420&r2=908968&diff_format=u
>  
>  
> Also, you shouldn’t need the gpg plugin defined in <dependencyManagement> as child modules can call profiles of parent.  I have only defined the gpg plugin in the profile section.

It's actually not in dependencyManagement but in pluginManagement. I keep all plugin versions there in an attempt of keeping some structure in the file. This has the effect that I don't have to define a version at the place I'm referring to the plugin but still have it well-defined at a specific version.
I was fooled more than once by a failing build caused by a suddenly updated plugin...

>  
> Side note - I hadn’t looked at Lilith for awhile as it didn’t support direct log file use.  Very happy to see “…to support writing of Lilith logfiles using Logback FileAppender” added!  I will change the appender, try it, and hopefully roll out Lilith for the team. (hmm, sidetracked looking for docs…)
>  

Are you looking for Lilith docs? That's still somewhat lacking, I'm afraid.
Most of the documentation is contained in the help of Lilith itself at the moment. Changing that is still on my agenda :p

I hope you like it. Please let me know if you have suggestions.

Thanks,
Joern.

>  
> From: Joern Huxhorn [mailto:jhuxhorn at googlemail.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2010 10:15 AM
> To: User list for the slf4j project
> Cc: Jeff Jensen
> Subject: Re: [slf4j-user] Signatures for verifying Slf4j
>  
> Hi Jeff,
>  
> thank you very much for this information and your article! I wasn't aware of this plugin.
>  
> I just changed my build process for Lilith accordingly.
> See http://github.com/huxi/lilith/commit/c2689ee57b263c6a2cb6241547a991703354bc6f
>  
> I had to jump through some loops, though, since I have gpg2 instead of gpg:
>  
> The following two properties had to be added to my pom:
> <gpg.useagent>true</gpg.useagent>
> <gpg.keyname>740A1840</gpg.keyname>
>  
> The first one makes sure that gpg isn't complaining about an invalid option (--no-use-agent was removed in gpg2) and doesn't ask for a passphrase anymore.
> This was quite tricky since the documentation of maven-gpg-plugin says that it's called useAgent, which it isn't!
>  
> The second one selects the correct key used for the signature - which is a good idea if you have more than one.
>  
> I wanted to comment on your article but, unfortunately, comments are disabled.
>  
> Cheers,
> Joern.
>  
> On 08.05.2010, at 03:23, Jeff Jensen wrote:
> 
> 
> It is best if the artifacts are signed.  Sometime in the near future, Central/Nexus will not accept artifacts without being signed.
>  
> This would prove the source for you more than the hashes.
>  
> Ceki: you should start signing the release artifacts.  It is very easy - I’ve done it already on a few products and Sonatype has a very good page describing how.  Maven will do it automatically for you:
> http://www.sonatype.com/people/2010/01/how-to-generate-pgp-signatures-with-maven
>  
>  
>  
> From: slf4j-user-bounces at qos.ch [mailto:slf4j-user-bounces at qos.ch] On Behalf Of Joern Huxhorn
> Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 3:50 AM
> To: User list for the slf4j project
> Subject: Re: [slf4j-user] Signatures for verifying Slf4j
>  
> One solution could be the use of signed tags for SLF4J and Logback.
>  
> That way it would be possible to pull the git repository, check the signature of the tag and build SLF4J and Logback yourself afterwards.
> I think the MD5 and SHA1 of Maven repository are merely a way to prevent corrupted files, not an actual security feature.
>  
> Cheers,
> Joern.
>  
> On 07.05.2010, at 09:26, Elisha Ebenezer wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Ceki,
> I'm trying to push to use Slf4j and logback in our project and my company wants me to get the MD5 or SHA1 hashes or the code-signing certs to verify the integrity of downloaded files.
>  
> Though repo1.maven.org site provides the hashes, we are not sure whether the war and the hash are uploaded by genuine party or not.
>  
> As you are the owner of the project, I request you to kindly publish the hashes or certs on website's download page.. which can be cross-checked with the downloaded war and/or also with the maven repository.
>  
> Kindly do the needful and oblige.
>  
> Thanks,
> Elisha Ebenezer. _______________________________________________
> slf4j-user mailing list
> slf4j-user at qos.ch
> http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/slf4j-user
>  
> _______________________________________________
> slf4j-user mailing list
> slf4j-user at qos.ch
> http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/slf4j-user
>  
> _______________________________________________
> slf4j-user mailing list
> slf4j-user at qos.ch
> http://qos.ch/mailman/listinfo/slf4j-user

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://qos.ch/pipermail/slf4j-user/attachments/20100508/c9a7b662/attachment-0001.html>