[pacman-dev] [PATCH] repo-add: add --include-sigs option

[Allan McRae]

On 23/9/20 12:27 pm, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> On 9/21/20 3:02 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
>> On 21/9/20 3:51 pm, Andrew Gregory wrote:
>>> I would suggest just allowing the user to specify either way
>>> (--include-sigs/--no-include-sigs, --include-sigs={yes,no}, etc).
>>> Then uses can specify whatever they want without having to worry about
>>> what we set as a default.
>>>
>>
>> The problem is more the transition.  I would like the default to be not
>> to include the signatures in the repo database.  So does pacman need to
>> manage the transition from having signatures in a database to not, or do
>> the users need to manage that?
>>
>> With my patch (or any variant the does not include signatures by
>> default), users upgrading to repo-add v6.0 would need to adjust their
>> repo management utilities to add a signature include option immediately,
>> as their users may still be using pacman-5.x.
>>
>> Thinking of Arch here, a dbscripts update would need launched on the
>> server at the same time as updating repo-add.  I am OK with that - some
>> updates need done in concert.  But Eli was not.
> 
> I'm concerned both about the need to time the adjustment of the option,
> and about the desire for what I see as sane defaults.
> 
> My preference is to provide both options, but change the default in
> pacman 6.0.1.

We are not making a behaviour change in a point release.

> While we're hacking on repo-add options, we could go ahead and make it
> use parseopts, because the current handling is gross. Also I would like
> an elephant (usually I would request a pony, but this felt more apropos
> if we're talking about repo-add).

I'm not touching repo-add beyond the most minor of changes.  A sync db
writing backend should be added to libalpm and repo-add replaced with
something more easily extended.

Allan