From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "J.P." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#58985: 29.0.50; Have auth-source-pass behave more like other back ends Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 19:45:11 -0800 Message-ID: <87k03w7uew.fsf__42992.4680780218$1668483982$gmane$org@neverwas.me> References: <87wn8cb0ym.fsf@neverwas.me> <874jvdardn.fsf__3771.40490324877$1667692584$gmane$org@neverwas.me> <87pme09vis.fsf@gmx.de> <87a653z7dl.fsf@neverwas.me> <874jvbnje1.fsf@gmx.de> <875yfpmtwb.fsf__40235.4477484309$1667915906$gmane$org@neverwas.me> <87o7tfiqws.fsf@thaodan.de> <875yfnnzy6.fsf@neverwas.me> <87cz9vhqqq.fsf@thaodan.de> <87pmduc1pz.fsf@neverwas.me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="5756"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: Damien Cassou , emacs-erc@gnu.org, Michael Albinus , Akib Azmain Turja , 58985@debbugs.gnu.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn?= Bidar Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 15 04:46:14 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oumto-0001Gb-Ux for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2022 04:46:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oumtf-0007dq-Nx; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 22:46:03 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oumte-0007dd-MY for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 22:46:02 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oumte-0008H8-EJ for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 22:46:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oumte-0007Vg-8S for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 22:46:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: "J.P." Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 03:46:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 58985 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 58985-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B58985.166848392328819 (code B ref 58985); Tue, 15 Nov 2022 03:46:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 58985) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Nov 2022 03:45:23 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52455 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oumt1-0007Uk-HP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 22:45:23 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-108-mta109.mxroute.com ([136.175.108.109]:35043) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oumsz-0007US-66 for 58985@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 22:45:21 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-111-mta2.mxroute.com ([136.175.111.2] filter006.mxroute.com) (Authenticated sender: mN4UYu2MZsgR) by mail-108-mta109.mxroute.com (ZoneMTA) with ESMTPSA id 18479641c470006e99.002 for <58985@debbugs.gnu.org> (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256); Tue, 15 Nov 2022 03:45:14 +0000 X-Zone-Loop: 466578b3d36df7309158a30074c9c8764c81db5211c5 X-Originating-IP: [136.175.111.2] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=neverwas.me ; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date: References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=oMOmBuOLaxzVuD2qcIXMxly0og2PyRC7qB9rAAB+0kg=; b=BHrKJNvpUP6MqzSq9d0uwIDahy oKLCoQA9AMZgWSxJ8JD8n0ThEwsJ/H/NeuJgBr4Hwe3kY/o5gUPphLHNyvPK/1k3liXcq1XgqfNkh zU9n8OYBpDH/8cey1gMFK1YCABsW0Qh0WGg4xBL6PJ/RQ+zlIXMIvT/qXVVue+SRMJ5oFbkWpKv/6 rcJORxM2eGJ/p+zY+tcWB6slVJ0Gf4OxjnwRItgo3e/RztjIt4j+wvjgNUX4JmJtSBoK54PLLmny4 JF6rIg2A6PipSNDjLzpvfgNB452XN6xCEhj1mn3l6kYagQ5zJV1dHyX0BjF6fVRhV7QHOJ6nmkvYX NXiL9Vew==; In-Reply-To: <87pmduc1pz.fsf@neverwas.me> (J. P.'s message of "Thu, 10 Nov 2022 06:40:08 -0800") X-Authenticated-Id: masked@neverwas.me X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:247909 Archived-At: Hi Bj=C3=B6rn, "J.P." writes: > Bj=C3=B6rn Bidar writes: > >> "J.P." writes: >> >>> From this I'll infer that the current implementation of auth-source-pass >>> does that sufficiently. If that's so and the changes I'm proposing >>> threaten to interfere with that, what's your opinion on the default >>> value of a knob to toggle the new behavior? >> >> Hm it depends if there are any backends that workaround that old behavio= r. >> From what I see the only difference really is that you can specify >> require and max. > > There are actually a few subtle areas where the behavior between old and > new differs and maybe one or two slightly unintuitive gotchas for folks > unfamiliar with how the other back ends operate. If you're curious, > there's a series of side-by-side comparisons added by the first patch > toward the bottom of > > test/lisp/auth-source-pass-tests.el > > Please let me know if you have any questions. I should have expressed this more clearly sooner, but I was hoping to solicit a vote from you as to whether to enable the new, more "standardized" behavior by default. If you choose to abstain, would you at least commit to trying it out before 29.1 is fully released and raising any issues that might arise as a consequence of whatever default we go with? This would allow us (me, hopefully) to fix or revert the changes if necessary. Thanks, J.P.