From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] package.el: check tarball signature Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 06:41:28 -0400 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87txh0uf8n.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> References: <874n92x9em.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <87fvsk9m8b.fsf-ueno@gnu.org> Reply-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1380710502 13653 80.91.229.3 (2 Oct 2013 10:41:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 10:41:42 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 02 12:41:46 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1VRJsG-0003nF-Oo for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 12:41:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35219 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VRJsG-0001F4-EM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 06:41:44 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59563) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VRJs8-0001Eh-Nv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 06:41:42 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VRJs2-0003EB-OI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 06:41:36 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:45663) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VRJs2-0003DW-I1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 06:41:30 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VRJs1-0003VS-AN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 12:41:29 +0200 Original-Received: from c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net ([98.229.61.72]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 12:41:29 +0200 Original-Received: from tzz by c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 12:41:29 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 52 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net 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 User-Agent: Gnus/5.130008 (Ma Gnus v0.8) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:zHzbH6nu0z7T4fB9NQdHkFv4rlM= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:163799 Archived-At: On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 16:16:04 +0900 Daiki Ueno wrote: DU> I've read the discussion and patches, but it's still unclear to me. DU> Your latest(?) patch (package-archive-signed-3.patch) has DU> package--create-detached-signature, but nobody calls it. For what DU> purpose would you need signature generation? So the maintainer can create a signature from Emacs instead of externally. The signer is intended to be a maintainer after review, not a package creator. DU> Or, perhaps you wanted to develop a user interface to upload tarballs DU> with signature? Then it should be go into package-x.el instead of DU> package.el, I suppose. It's something you would run on the ELPA server, not at upload time. I thought it belonged nicely in package.el. DU> Anyway, I'm a bit surprised that there are few researches of existing DU> packaging systems which already utilize GPG signature, such as Debian DU> and Fedora. AFAIK, those systems do not require signing operation in DU> their installer UI. package.el is not just an installer UI, it's a full package manager. >> In addition I started on the EPG interaction you've finished, so you can >> probably start with my patch and fix the EPG-related pieces and any >> other issues instead of writing your own. DU> I'm sorry, I couldn't find anything I can reuse in your patch. It even DU> succeeds signature verification when GPG reports bad signatures. That's one of the EPG-related pieces I mentioned need fixing. But at this point your v2 patch has done the work so there's no point in arguing. DU> Also, why did you choose ".gpgsig" extension rather than ".sig", DU> which has already been used on ftp.gnu.org for a decade? I think the extension name is not that important, but here specifically I wanted to indicate it's generated by GPG. .sig will obviously work exactly the same way. DU> And I think it's too much to modify package--with-work-buffer to DU> check signatures of all files downloaded. I disagree, but please implement what you believe will do the work of checking the signatures for packages (tarballs and individual) and the package index. That's the goal; the implementation details don't matter too much. Ted