From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Failure getting compat on Emacs <29. seq.2.24 signature expired in gnu elpa? Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 21:50:39 -0400 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="25689"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: Pierre Rouleau Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 04 03:51:23 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1sEJKd-0006XL-7s for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 04 Jun 2024 03:51:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sEJK2-0003le-8Y; Mon, 03 Jun 2024 21:50:46 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sEJK1-0003lL-0i for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Jun 2024 21:50:45 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sEJJz-0001HG-Eh for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Jun 2024 21:50:44 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E33D0444AD7; Mon, 3 Jun 2024 21:50:41 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1717465840; bh=hZa6ySKuVkhbMo4j/KG0dnNF1PjyBt9sBSFxnaBoM0s=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=G6vIByfsX8aN/7+qfY0zgnUuUge44JuArYZQH0TEPZKQh25np2+kn/8ew+C/bOLma 1f6m4yevv1Bnbcv313jra3plerInzq1WnaYNh4RFr7swy36m7sZl4eRcHisdG1BYaF tYdgTEF/un9Qyz+BOObRQsxj7g4+oqYnADxDNwuyzGYlkYo/ubqOVmmHkHXIsr208n NxnMG/H3yG/XHy3mU1SbWi/8g8X34F0TOfJiv4CVo3m6oUnqbhFi+prNLD4w/HJxgM ThuegeqKx7fpsE3BKZSK5jnwqIKX9DxEyhdca1BsBBNpMxE6XjdtjkiR26o8D0vI8G wI3qjtDY0pmYw== Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B32C8444AD5; Mon, 3 Jun 2024 21:50:40 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [24.140.236.196]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8D036120230; Mon, 3 Jun 2024 21:50:40 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Pierre Rouleau's message of "Mon, 3 Jun 2024 17:51:41 -0400") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.help:146851 Archived-At: > It's probably something invalid on that system, which runs Emcas 26.3. > I have been able to install the eat package on other systems that run > Emacs 27.2 or 29.3 without any problem. That rings a bell... oh yes, here it is in NEWS.27: *** Change of 'package-check-signature' for packages with multiple sigs. In previous Emacsen, t checked that all signatures are valid. Now t only checks that at least one signature is valid and the new 'all' value needs to be used if you want to enforce that all signatures are valid. This only affects packages with multiple signatures. =F0=9F=99=81 Stefan