From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nikita Karetnikov Subject: Re: Signed archives (preliminary patch) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 15:57:50 +0400 Message-ID: <87lhwfljcx.fsf@karetnikov.org> References: <87txcqesqv.fsf@karetnikov.org> <87eh3ure1r.fsf@gnu.org> <87bnyyiv2u.fsf_-_@karetnikov.org> <87ha8qo7rl.fsf@gnu.org> <8761p5jv1g.fsf@karetnikov.org> <87r47tfmes.fsf@gnu.org> <8738k0pj8c.fsf@karetnikov.org> <874n4fnhs7.fsf@gnu.org> <87ppmigld8.fsf@karetnikov.org> <87y514dv2u.fsf@gnu.org> <87y50wffjy.fsf_-_@karetnikov.org> <874n3kp46f.fsf@gnu.org> <87lhwqsxjr.fsf@karetnikov.org> <87bnxl62ws.fsf@gnu.org> <87k3c4joyt.fsf@karetnikov.org> <87a9cz9f1k.fsf@gnu.org> <87zjkxysfi.fsf@karetnikov.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34008) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WNhgX-0005bI-R8 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 07:50:58 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WNhgX-0005MJ-0P for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Mar 2014 07:50:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87zjkxysfi.fsf@karetnikov.org> (Nikita Karetnikov's message of "Tue, 11 Mar 2014 13:51:13 +0400") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >> Actually, the problem with making =E2=80=98assert-valid-signature=E2=80= =99 public is >> that it raises &nar error conditions. I=E2=80=99ve looked through the code; now I need even more information. Pl= ease elaborate. >> It could be changed to raise a more generic &signature-error, but then >> =E2=80=98restore-file-set=E2=80=99 would have to guard against it to re-= throw it along >> with a &nar-error (making a compound condition.) And then ui.scm would >> figure it out. Blech. Why would it need a more generic error? Why would =E2=80=98restore-file-se= t=E2=80=99 have to rethrow it along with an &nar-error? How=E2=80=99s =E2=80=98ui.scm= =E2=80=99 relevant? It=E2=80=99d be great if you could paste the code you were talking about. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTIEvAAAoJEM+IQzI9IQ3833gP/i1Re7P6/4wPSKr/6nmQ3pLk m/1ijmQP7dQMtBSLs1BRJSrGm1/1EE0d5skLaA+JBQEDz3mwkkmJUtcUTkSAJXhB eSHkDKTkJSyQLsbjlM7tUuHAYzwdZ2bHXUdMeYWVo/IDEYKnZ7sDzp1N8jm4D5EJ wh1XxT3H2f8oY+GTprgYjgXgUZApUBcoOHm0T/w1FPRzNBZurWRIH5mSBjQjeOEa JKt/i/Ndp6SwPq6IjRIqrwxIN0W/J35BtMWr6WeihlzrFrWHKbnDAEpEq1pqi5er U9TifNpTTw4H1galHZEbmDZfcqoEuqQk1YtYMfyT2NXCb6y4w9eJvLautGuwrfAQ VD7lRPMU4s+00wXyqUoqmm6Q8A1vnnQpqWkBFJRkWsKeP7Wu4zikUC6zMcVE0Qrj tySkJD9DFXv7pN15WQ1/oDkQt+9I+kfw+t6vVnvImQllHPJw82TFjdxo+ax3GIbP LVamrESH0gq/BrZvjtZVOx3A9JJfJfByKdPEIdUvktyvyybvf46MTlLZq81jgRDw edGORYduLgcpHzVxmPQOyl2qUVyVVzGi3dJ/DJuw6pAqEWUPdpzU/dbr0EHB2Dgn UMqHqYAmRR7/JEbN3dZEHr025xrRbtT7BRezm0jN/OxJr+24FgBHHtyPWeXghCj6 gk/pzfJnyTy3hCGhhb/B =myhj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--