From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#17625: 24.4.50; All installed packages marked "unsigned", no archive listed Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 12:50:35 -0400 Message-ID: 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; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1403801493 18179 80.91.229.3 (26 Jun 2014 16:51:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 16:51:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 17625@debbugs.gnu.org To: Daiki Ueno Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jun 26 18:51:24 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 1X0CtP-0003VF-Ld for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 18:51:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46017 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X0CtO-0001uY-VI for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 12:51:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35280) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X0CtD-0001tL-Qe for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 12:51:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X0Ct5-0003Qj-Dj for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 12:51:11 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:42778) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X0Ct5-0003Qe-A1 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 12:51:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X0Ct4-0001Nf-HB for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 12:51:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 16:51:02 +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=B17625.14038014545277 (code B ref 17625); Thu, 26 Jun 2014 16:51:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 17625) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Jun 2014 16:50:54 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33928 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X0Csq-0001Mo-QB for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 12:50:53 -0400 Original-Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:53657) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1X0Csf-0001MG-OX for 17625@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 12:50:46 -0400 Original-Received: from ceviche.home ([24.201.170.218]) by VL-VM-MR001.ip.videotron.ca (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-22.01 64bit (built Apr 21 2011)) with ESMTP id <0N7S00K6BC4B9QT0@VL-VM-MR001.ip.videotron.ca> for 17625@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 12:50:36 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id BC32C66302; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 12:50:35 -0400 (EDT) In-reply-to: <87mwczagnm.fsf@lifelogs.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) 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:90849 Archived-At: > I think it's helpful to indicate if packages are signed--unless they > must be signed by default, which is currently not the case. There seems to be a misunderstanding: the current "unsigned" mention (which I recently disabled) indicates whether an *already installed* package had its signature checked when it was installed. Whereas the feature you're discussing seems to be to indicate which candidates for installation have a signature available for checking (this is not implemented, AFAICT). Stefan