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: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 03:20:41 -0400 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: References: <8738zf70ep.fsf@riseup.net> <871uejlbm1.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87k3rrr31g.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <874nium8h0.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87zk0ljaub.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87wqvng299.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87ip77y2s9.fsf@Rainer.invalid> 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 1371453691 28789 80.91.229.3 (17 Jun 2013 07:21:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 07:21:31 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 17 09:21:31 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 1UoTkn-0001Qm-2Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:21:29 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35261 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UoTkm-00045B-KR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 03:21:28 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46852) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UoTkR-0003as-PO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 03:21:12 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UoTkN-0006PQ-T4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 03:21:07 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:45866) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UoTkN-0006PE-Nh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 03:21:03 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UoTkD-0000Nh-TQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:20:53 +0200 Original-Received: from 80.203.78.216 ([80.203.78.216]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:20:53 +0200 Original-Received: from tzz by 80.203.78.216 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:20:53 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 25 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.203.78.216 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 (darwin) Cancel-Lock: sha1:iePh5SbWuw9LfwikZ4h3g/OTI5Y= 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:160492 Archived-At: On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 19:12:02 -0400 Stefan Monnier wrote: >> * add `package-signed-archives', a list of logical archive names with >> default '("gnu"). Add `package-archive-signed-p' to check it. SM> I'd opt for the opposite, i.e. list the archives that aren't signed. SM> And maybe automatically eliminate an archive from that "not signed" SM> list if we ever find a signature in it. How about basing the decision on the existence of etc/elpa/ARCHIVE-NAME.signed which can then tell us more about the way the archive is signed without customizing ELisp code? Like a Yum or APT repository description you can drop in? I could use it to automatically augment `package-archives' if you think that's useful, so it becomes very manageable for a whole site. >> If you're OK with the code changes I'll get them working and start >> implementing `package--verify-signature'. SM> Go ahead, OK, thanks for the review. Ted