Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 11:55:51 -0700 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira <lioux@uol.com.br> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.ORG>, "Michael C . Wu" <keichii@peorth.iteration.net>, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG>, Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Subject: Re: Package signing tools Message-ID: <3A50D2B7.5AD86D9E@softweyr.com> References: <3A4ED1C0.14061CE5@softweyr.com> <20001231003920.A24519@peorth.iteration.net> <3A4EDCA9.5CEA7114@softweyr.com> <20010101083459.B12422@citusc.usc.edu> <20010101143803.A3416@Fedaykin.here> <3A50C6A8.3E02FAE@softweyr.com> <20010101161001.B3416@Fedaykin.here>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 11:04:02AM -0700, Wes Peters wrote:
> > Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 08:34:37AM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 12:13:45AM -0700, Wes Peters wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Yeah, it's a good idea, but this is really a simple standalone program.
> > > > > It doesn't prevent you from pkg_add'ing something, you have to chose to
> > > > > pkg_check it and see if the result is kosher. It is at this time orthogonal
> > > > > to pkg_version.
> > > >
> > > > Checking the signature should be automatic and part of pkg_add, which
> > > > should refuse to add the package if it fails.
> > >
> > > And, "smart users" should be allowed to bypass this if
> > > they wish so. ;)
> > > Just like checksum. But, with scarier warnings.
> >
> > Right. Should checking the signature be the default, with an option to
> > skip it, or should it be optional to pkg_add?
>
> I think that it should be optional for now.
> We have an awful amount of non-signed packages floating
> around the net. Then, with the next release comes (4.3R or whatever),
> this should become the default.
I don't see pkg_add refusing to add an unsigned package, since as of yet
no signed packages exist. I can see telling the user the package is
unsigned and asking if you want to continue, unless -f has been specified.
> Unless, of course, that not-having a signature would be
> considered all right for old packages (as a compability note).
> Anything we could include in the packages aside of the signature
> to allow us to identify them as "new" or "old"?
Don't sign them? ;^)
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3A50D2B7.5AD86D9E>