From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#17625: 24.4.50; All installed packages marked "unsigned", no archive listed Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 20:52:41 -0400 Organization: =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=A2=D0=B5=D0=BE=D0=B4=D0=BE=D1=80_?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=97=D0=BB=D0=B0=D1=82=D0=B0=D0=BD=D0=BE=D0=B2?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87egyb9ns6.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <87tx89ffax.fsf@pellet.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <2vvbsnrgpk.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87mwczagnm.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87ionna453.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1403830406 7801 80.91.229.3 (27 Jun 2014 00:53:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 00:53:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Daiki Ueno , 17625@debbugs.gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 27 02:53:20 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1X0KPn-00077u-DI for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 27 Jun 2014 02:53:19 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47540 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X0KPm-0000hF-Tc for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 20:53:18 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48297) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X0KPe-0000c4-6j for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 20:53:15 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X0KPW-0002Br-TM for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 20:53:10 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:42977) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X0KPW-0002Bn-Pj for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 20:53:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X0KPW-0002eX-AO for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 20:53:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Ted Zlatanov Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 00:53:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 17625 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 17625-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B17625.140383034810125 (code B ref 17625); Fri, 27 Jun 2014 00:53:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 17625) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Jun 2014 00:52:28 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34127 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X0KOx-0002dC-GF for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 20:52:27 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-qg0-f45.google.com ([209.85.192.45]:60772) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X0KOv-0002cy-68 for 17625@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 20:52:25 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-qg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id 63so3741134qgz.18 for <17625@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 17:52:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lifelogs.com; s=google; h=from:to:cc:subject:organization:references:mail-copies-to :gmane-reply-to-list:date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent :mime-version:content-type; bh=ZWFYFeGjE8Now2RsWjhH9kusxGZlKSUOrgl+1aLxcDk=; b=Tdj3zsg9UoFHLcDsRZAxuqMWN129VaEdXjWN6u6qvXVf/m4VJn+fukJzUAtfS/NRbP 8ZIywZDzDT4HTyAo0WabgrTy9Vay4iQTtH6kaxjBLjkPJoiYvo6S4hdqnwD4dwkYSPpF 0nHsiogVU/fF2ZOumKb8Sdr6xKLoVBy/iXfTg= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:organization:references :mail-copies-to:gmane-reply-to-list:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=ZWFYFeGjE8Now2RsWjhH9kusxGZlKSUOrgl+1aLxcDk=; b=j05szxmU7d8KlQIIYGszB2YoHuAx+A/5NiHTCySMXwk9utLqwiiEelJqHbvNN2AFDY EYOdD4SnHehYCNFaAqB0LtiLxclcGg2rA59AanmUQ6nrBSgMV4CQNeXW4chJjzXDcgrq rkNiwsw4IJfztYonMMCL8m/YuUHwaYSODF6eBOXp6PM3CRV5/+wmL8bXF2+3sq2GKrDD ZPJnExdjy6y54TlZ7g4wWYDMxKoTuyAj1amJbDEOoB1J+v1LxOZKSDN0QkTOj7ybfSq6 VsP98nj8xCokIIPyPCu/y/F0aLtxg98c9XzBrX/Sp+n6tDTLbgDD9VNWcysZgX53SRUq 2uxA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlG0ZlzFSXROSC5LbX3omh4kDmjx0lNIlR8JpodXB+oXUbZvZkGGcQp44Wc2ZQf8ZKmOHNa X-Received: by 10.140.43.180 with SMTP id e49mr3835645qga.32.1403830339617; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 17:52:19 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from flea (c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [98.229.61.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id c52sm5251049qgc.32.2014.06.26.17.52.18 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 26 Jun 2014 17:52:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" Mail-Copies-To: never Gmane-Reply-To-List: yes In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:51:25 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.130008 (Ma Gnus v0.8) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:90873 Archived-At: On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:51:25 -0400 Stefan Monnier wrote: SM> Whereas the feature you're discussing seems to be to indicate which SM> candidates for installation have a signature available for checking SM> (this is not implemented, AFAICT). >> Is there a plan to implement the latter feature and can I help? I recall >> some discussions months ago but no definite plan. SM> I see 3 behaviors for it: SM> - Mention at package-installation time that there's no signature to check, SM> maybe with a prompt to confirm the user really wants to go ahead. SM> This is more or less the route taken by APT, AFAIK (at least, seen SM> from the user's point of view). SM> The first behavior [] should be very easy to implement. Great, this is an improvement on the current situation and will encourage package maintainers to sign their packages. But it must be one prompt per queue, not per package, so it's not too annoying. Also consider users without GnuPG, what should they see? SM> - Keep track of which archives have signatures and which don't (e.g. by SM> assuming that if `archive-contents' has a sig, then the packages also SM> have sigs). Then somehow display this info in the package list. I think that's a safe assumption and can be just an extra 1-char column after the archive name for the package. It's the logical UI companion to the install-time prompt so the user knows to expect the prompt later. SM> - Check each and every package to see if it has a sig. This implies SM> a lot more network communication, AFAICT, so I think it's not SM> a good idea. Agreed. In addition, just because a package has a valid signature when you list it doesn't mean it will be present or valid when you install it. Do you have a plan to start signing GNU ELPA packages so this can get tested in a real network setup? Just one is enough. I didn't mean to hijack this ticket; we can continue the discussion on emacs-devel or in a new ticket. Thanks Ted