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: security of the emacs package system, elpa, melpa and marmalade Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 13:18:10 -0400 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87vc1ixm7h.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> References: <523FEE1B.9020408@binary-island.eu> <87y56gymvz.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <52499473.50707@binary-island.eu> 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 1380561508 5801 80.91.229.3 (30 Sep 2013 17:18:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 17:18:28 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Sep 30 19:18:31 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 1VQh78-0001fL-QN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:18:30 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50527 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VQh78-0001QF-Ce for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 13:18:30 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59702) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VQh70-0001Lt-7e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 13:18:28 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VQh6t-0002CV-9p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 13:18:22 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:54935) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VQh6t-0002C6-3Z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 13:18:15 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VQh6r-0001RA-RQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:18:13 +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 ; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:18:13 +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 ; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:18:13 +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: 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:DiVuDDB7ms27hfFdcjSdiWZxrdY= 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:163738 Archived-At: On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 17:10:43 +0200 Matthias Dahl wrote: MD> Hello... >> I would propose using the signature files above to provide that wall, >> so auto-signing should not be done. Instead a maintainer team should >> review changes that need to go up on the GNU ELPA. MD> Ted, that would be really nice to have but as it was brought up earlier MD> in this thread, this is not gonna happen. And I can honestly understand MD> why it can't happen. The amount of manpower required to really do this MD> properly, is not something that could be easily shouldered by a team of MD> trusted volunteers in a timely manner. A much more complex version of this process works for Debian. I think the amount of changes is not bad for a daily review, especially if we move to a branch+pull request+merge model for the GNU ELPA. Github's infrastructure and UI for this is quite good. Oh, and of course the same branch+pull request+merge model could apply to the Emacs core as well; that IMO would be really nice. I think it's much less likely that Emacs will be rewritten to provide a sandbox for packages, and a community review process is more valuable in the long term in any case. Ted