From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50549) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1id1ql-0001NU-NJ for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 19:52:04 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1id1qk-0003d7-Ix for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 19:52:03 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:39480) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1id1qk-0003cJ-Bn for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 19:52:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1id1qk-0006mj-7O for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Dec 2019 19:52:02 -0500 Subject: [bug#38478] [PATCH 4/4] machine: ssh: can include the host key. Resent-Message-ID: From: zerodaysfordays@sdf.lonestar.org (Jakob L. Kreuze) References: <20191203211557.21145-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20191203211557.21145-4-ludo@gnu.org> <87d0d4qlc0.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org> <87tv6gatc9.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 19:50:13 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87tv6gatc9.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Wed, 04 Dec 2019 18:33:42 +0100") Message-ID: <87eexil1kq.fsf@sdf.lonestar.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 38478@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > I went ahead and pushed it as it seemed like a good idea to not wait. Agreed :) > BTW, I=E2=80=99m wondering if we should go further and deprecate missing/= #f > =E2=80=98host-key=E2=80=99 fields altogether. WDYT? > > To me it just seems wiser to have that info within the deploy config > rather than out-of-band in ~/.ssh/known_hosts. I feel that's more in-line with the goals of Guix -- implicitly reading ~/.ssh/known_hosts doesn't seem declarative to me. What's our means for deprecating features like that? A warning message when omitted? If that's the case, I'm definitely on board. Regards, Jakob --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEa1VJLOiXAjQ2BGSm9Qb9Fp2P2VoFAl3ppccACgkQ9Qb9Fp2P 2VoOtQ//bsGKOOOJbZJ9xfSHTiuz3BaBO4kk1VM9sMqbIJE1IfdvavM4fGAem82g lVJGsIdPLFtGcDnMETuobRUpP7u4qhrn1sBAhvUqmEO5iLCBXOXUI5W4fSkIYUnf D98H9Pg0qE5yfru598ldCwhn3vJ3WAncwebmLbOrgSyNVKBlboLXt7JUG6xTgv5d zsMVog47uIK5RfWDhw5T3GblfKijmIapqg32/W7GoHDRJ94/+Z/KBRd9iqeJSydl 9QSuntdp+5m5O7bjCzrNJBCtuMpJ6VLmG1sNLjdwDAbDEzvY5T7OJMvZdtrnbbPd 7GlUhz7Wsc1d7LqQ6JomqGLmfQQ3JiU0As5k4XFNbN+ZkOo2xaF3N6wutWP6DgJB kt3Mupo8erdQbmgjeSGkVRff+7naIOIv+U5DJ6BsHdHe7F0ljzHKCjOsBvpyFBID byCijr/szfXujiAME5xZv9SK6iOJNc5fri97tz5NhlBx+jXd0h9uhb3kkZXk432I XsDWTHjNzq5hvK2TdXbibHJfJOICHgZrMUv1kA0X573WO4rWUfUFnI+jpkCd9ryj 5b4+3gcbZAn0H6D6H2zS9ngW+Gv8v2AKCFySBI3XxQrm0DaIg7kjkYFMnKjVfcwW HhUV5wLYr8O6kB176dQrVQHAx28ST3e8/6hTHmi+8nWWz9qe4HE= =2xax -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--