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 14:59:20 -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: <87ionna453.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> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1403809226 16642 80.91.229.3 (26 Jun 2014 19:00:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 19:00:26 +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 Thu Jun 26 21:00:19 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 1X0EuA-0002CT-Ls for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:00:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46409 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X0EuA-0002r4-CM for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:00:18 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37730) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X0Eu2-0002py-Cp for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:00:15 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X0Etx-0008A9-7k for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:00:10 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:42875) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X0Etx-00087g-2y for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:00:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X0Etw-0006jk-7y for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:00:04 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Ted Zlatanov Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 19:00:04 +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=B17625.140380915025774 (code B ref 17625); Thu, 26 Jun 2014 19:00:04 +0000 Original-Received: (at 17625) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Jun 2014 18:59:10 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34025 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X0Et4-0006he-BF for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 14:59:10 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-qc0-f180.google.com ([209.85.216.180]:47863) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X0Esy-0006gz-FX for 17625@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 14:59:08 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-qc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id r5so3498156qcx.25 for <17625@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 11:58:58 -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=hiYJWDBPAIfQOaPgTiuw6nGLPdpT70/o8UtHF+FcdzU=; b=gRpGem1KS0y1Fzzt+d6gzxNS2z6VlZ8z3Rr5SQBR8VHpELAME3T+lHlnBHA+rE4/o3 h8COn+lh5LCRTb4OA/viHs1SIk1nq/HT21PcmANHeA/c3WR5tMMkr/xDg3t5YwpAC8FX BJ8mCkhGp6yGMN1kde2OxVaPgqkFw5h6fpDH0= 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=hiYJWDBPAIfQOaPgTiuw6nGLPdpT70/o8UtHF+FcdzU=; b=jZUsNUegdTpMZwlQfYN4nQamyitYSogI8rwCmA+k0hX/sDCplLQjIAKGlnJcwFsMYr OU1GFjkvSdgodsLrq/CIbqacSA1PUT2iWXmg6F4yjLr4ztvy7mdUEKxYVTKSlXCMa43Q sVM5NsGfaXpp5jbDZBw1u18Y1XkbEs2ivlU8Xol97kmQ5tNoBiBadT6it5qra2Xu3SBa YLXIWbuyqwlSLwiU79p29PXBLIazWt1W2TXXzBgnC1hZqcvG6jJ/HBaw2nbNzqsnKY8o Mzi4/AzaSo52FXavA5pF/4KYhDHA8wby+jNhAo3gy4BDtAtO8v8akszymkOZiVcnR0AP gxWg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk07k/NVKSwlZbZwySYLs7+SGlyf/bxEWz2TpPPELJw70Ha+tr76anSxKD5RMTU3F3mIk+y X-Received: by 10.224.160.209 with SMTP id o17mr25329949qax.103.1403809138731; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 11:58:58 -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 l1sm12512323qat.20.2014.06.26.11.58.57 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 26 Jun 2014 11:58:58 -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 12:50:35 -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:90858 Archived-At: On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 12:50:35 -0400 Stefan Monnier wrote: >> I think it's helpful to indicate if packages are signed--unless they >> must be signed by default, which is currently not the case. SM> There seems to be a misunderstanding: the current "unsigned" mention SM> (which I recently disabled) indicates whether an *already installed* SM> package had its signature checked when it was installed. 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). Thank you for clarifying, you're right. After installation we don't have a way to verify a package's contents, do we? Is that worth pursuing? Is there a plan to implement the latter feature and can I help? I recall some discussions months ago but no definite plan. Ted