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: ELPA security Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 09:47:46 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87wqvng299.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <8738zf70ep.fsf@riseup.net> <871uejlbm1.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87k3rrr31g.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <874nium8h0.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87zk0ljaub.fsf@lifelogs.com> 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 1357656489 23915 80.91.229.3 (8 Jan 2013 14:48:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 14:48:09 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 08 15:48:26 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 1TsaTZ-0007Kv-Qn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:48:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51354 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TsaTK-00072n-81 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 09:48:10 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:37805) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TsaTF-0006si-VK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 09:48:06 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TsaTB-0001Lo-4o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 09:48:05 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:33298) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TsaTA-0001LT-UH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 09:48:01 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TsaTN-00073N-8o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:48:13 +0100 Original-Received: from c-65-96-148-157.hsd1.ma.comcast.net ([65.96.148.157]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:48:13 +0100 Original-Received: from tzz by c-65-96-148-157.hsd1.ma.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:48:13 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 40 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-65-96-148-157.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/5.130006 (Ma Gnus v0.6) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:yUV5nnzjfgElGku6JwT5a1oHHI4= 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:156144 Archived-At: On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 22:07:05 -0500 Stefan Monnier wrote: >> Yes, I think that's the agreement. I'd rather keep a .sig for every >> file instead of signing the whole package, because then you can package >> the whole directory in one tarball or distribute it as source, but >> that's a technicality IMO. SM> The tarball contains nothing else than the source, and it can only be SM> downloaded as a whole, so there's no point signing each file in SM> a tarball individually. OK. So there's one signature, either for a standalone .el file, or for the whole tarball. It makes sense, then, to host it in `archive-contents'. >> I'd like to settle the signing keys (will it be the authors or a group >> of GNU ELPA maintainers?); SM> The signing will not guarantee any kind of code quality, it will only SM> guarantee "this comes from the real GNU ELPA". So the signing key will SM> be a "GNU ELPA" key. OK, great. >> `archive-contents' (will its format change?); SM> Yes and no: each entry in it will have one more optional field SM> containing the signature. AFAIK it should be backward compatible, so SM> it's a change, but will still work with older package.el. OK, so the package vector will have a new element. Releasing a package will require releasing a new `archive-contents' with an updated signature for that package and re-signing it with the "GNU ELPA" maintainer key. Last question: do you want to provide for files that may show up during compilation? They could be ignored (current behavior), or warned about, or could cause installation to be rejected. Ted