[pacman-dev] [PATCH 0/2] Add support for verifying pgp signatures to makepkg
allan at archlinux.org
Tue Jun 28 21:55:03 EDT 2011
On 29/06/11 09:21, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 23/06/11 17:36, Wieland Hoffmann wrote:
>> this adds support for verifying pgp signatures provided by upstream to
>> makepkg. A new array pgpsigs is defined holding the URLs to all the
>> signature files.
>> However, there're still a few quirks:
>> * You have to manually import the key which signed the source. Actually
>> that's good, but:
>> * You don't know why the verification failed. It's either a wrong
>> signature or the key is simply not known to gnupg. This is really
>> bad, so I've chosen to make pgp verification optional for now. makepkg
>> --pgp enables it.
> I'm not going to review the actual patches yet because I think there are
> a few things that need discussed about how best to handle this first.
> Firstly I want to note that there is another patch implementing this in
> a slightly different way on the bug tracker:
> So we might be able to combine some ideas here.
> So, onto the implementation:
> 1) Do we need a separate array for signatures, or should they be just
> added in the source=() array? If it was in the source array, I can just
> use bash expansion like:
> and it is fairly clear which files have signatures. It is also flexible
> enough to have a different source line if the signature is hosted
> elsewhere. As a "bonus" we would get md5sum checks on the signature file...
> I find a separate array that is not aligned with the source array (as in
> element x in the source array is not going to always be element x in the
> sig array) to be a bit confusing. We can detect signatures to check in
> the source array by extension (note comment #4 below) so I really think
> a separate array is overkill.
Another advantage of using the source array is that the gpg keys get
included with makepkg --allsource without any modifiations to makepkg.
> 2) How much control do we need on when this checking is done? Both
> implementation so far have provided some way to enable/disable this
> checking. I think it should run by default and a --skippgpcheck (name
> needs work...) analog to --skipinteg is all that is needed.
> 3) Can we use some return values from gpg to distinguish the failure
> cases? Then we could give some granularity in our output - e.g. Pass,
> FAIL, Unknown Key, (others???). I would be fine if the "Unknown Key"
> case was just a warning. I would also tend to hide the gpg output here
> as a failure will need manually investigated by the user anyway.
I see in another message to this thread the mention of using
--status-file and grepping the output given gpg is crap with its return
codes. That seems fine, but before that is implemented we should get a
list of possible values and decide what makepkg will do with them.
i.e., success, error or warning for the various cases. I'd lean to more
warnings than failures...
> 4) Note many projects distribute ascii armored signatures, so the
> extensions that need to be detected are .sig and .asc (is that all?)
More information about the pacman-dev