[pacman-dev] Checking whether a package was signed
I'm still trying to get to grips with package signing, so this question may not make complete sense, but: Is there a way to check whether the signature was verified when a package was installed?
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 12:45 PM, kachelaqa <kachelaqa@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm still trying to get to grips with package signing, so this question may not make complete sense, but:
Is there a way to check whether the signature was verified when a package was installed? No. However, -Si shows the presence of a signature and the various checksums (MD5, SHA256) in the database.
-Dan
On 21/01/12 19:57, Dan McGee wrote:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 12:45 PM, kachelaqa<kachelaqa@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm still trying to get to grips with package signing, so this question may not make complete sense, but:
Is there a way to check whether the signature was verified when a package was installed? No. However, -Si shows the presence of a signature and the various checksums (MD5, SHA256) in the database.
Okay, thanks. Can I ask why this is? I would have expected there to be a least a log message somewhere. ISTM that many users might want to know which installed packages on their systems have verified signatures, and which ones not. Would they be misguided in seeking that information?
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 2:48 PM, kachelaqa <kachelaqa@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21/01/12 19:57, Dan McGee wrote:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 12:45 PM, kachelaqa<kachelaqa@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm still trying to get to grips with package signing, so this question may not make complete sense, but:
Is there a way to check whether the signature was verified when a package was installed?
No. However, -Si shows the presence of a signature and the various checksums (MD5, SHA256) in the database.
Okay, thanks.
Can I ask why this is? I would have expected there to be a least a log message somewhere. It is a debug level message if one cares to look there. Obviously this isn't all that helpful for the general end user though.
ISTM that many users might want to know which installed packages on their systems have verified signatures, and which ones not. Would they be misguided in seeking that information? Not misguided, but not something we currently track or anything. I don't think we'd be against tracking this in some sort of %VERIFICATION% field or something in the database; this could store something like "md5", "sha256", "pgp", "none", etc. But it isn't something we are likely to sit down and code; patches definitely welcome.
-Dan
On 22/01/12 07:06, Dan McGee wrote:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 2:48 PM, kachelaqa <kachelaqa@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21/01/12 19:57, Dan McGee wrote:
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 12:45 PM, kachelaqa<kachelaqa@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm still trying to get to grips with package signing, so this question may not make complete sense, but:
Is there a way to check whether the signature was verified when a package was installed?
No. However, -Si shows the presence of a signature and the various checksums (MD5, SHA256) in the database.
Okay, thanks.
Can I ask why this is? I would have expected there to be a least a log message somewhere. It is a debug level message if one cares to look there. Obviously this isn't all that helpful for the general end user though.
ISTM that many users might want to know which installed packages on their systems have verified signatures, and which ones not. Would they be misguided in seeking that information? Not misguided, but not something we currently track or anything. I don't think we'd be against tracking this in some sort of %VERIFICATION% field or something in the database; this could store something like "md5", "sha256", "pgp", "none", etc. But it isn't something we are likely to sit down and code; patches definitely welcome.
I'd agree this would be something of interest to have in pacman, but not something that will be on our high priority list to implement. If this is something the OP wants to patch, great! If not, it would be useful to file a feature request so it does not get lost and someone else might see and fix. Allan
On 21/01/12 21:33, Allan McRae wrote:
I'd agree this would be something of interest to have in pacman, but not something that will be on our high priority list to implement.
If this is something the OP wants to patch, great! If not, it would be useful to file a feature request so it does not get lost and someone else might see and fix.
Okay. I will have a look to see if this is something within the scope of my meagre c-coding abilities. If not, I will make a feature request. Thanks.
On 21/01/12 21:33, kachelaqa wrote:
On 21/01/12 21:33, Allan McRae wrote:
I'd agree this would be something of interest to have in pacman, but not something that will be on our high priority list to implement.
If this is something the OP wants to patch, great! If not, it would be useful to file a feature request so it does not get lost and someone else might see and fix.
Okay. I will have a look to see if this is something within the scope of my meagre c-coding abilities.
If not, I will make a feature request.
participants (3)
-
Allan McRae
-
Dan McGee
-
kachelaqa