FS#20448 - [makepkg] allow verifying source file signatures
Attached to Project:
Pacman
Opened by Allan McRae (Allan) - Thursday, 12 August 2010, 12:44 GMT
Last edited by Allan McRae (Allan) - Wednesday, 12 October 2011, 23:17 GMT
Opened by Allan McRae (Allan) - Thursday, 12 August 2010, 12:44 GMT
Last edited by Allan McRae (Allan) - Wednesday, 12 October 2011, 23:17 GMT
|
Details
Summary and Info:
Many projects distribute a signature file along with source code. It would be good to have makepkg verify these. |
This task depends upon
Closed by Allan McRae (Allan)
Wednesday, 12 October 2011, 23:17 GMT
Reason for closing: Implemented
Additional comments about closing: http://projects.archlinux.org/pacman.git /commit/?id=94f61c5b
Wednesday, 12 October 2011, 23:17 GMT
Reason for closing: Implemented
Additional comments about closing: http://projects.archlinux.org/pacman.git /commit/?id=94f61c5b
Do they usually live at a well-defined location that we could guess at, or would this be a separate array? Part of me says a separate array would be best, so something like:
source=('http://my.com/foobar/asdfasdf-$pkgver.tar.gz' 'mypatch1' 'myconfig1')
signatures=('http://my.com/foobar/asdfasdf-$pkgver.tar.gz.sig' '' '')
The emptiness indicates "no sig available", or perhaps we could use some other sentinel value.
my plan was to add a sigcheck build option. then in download_sources check for the flag if it is set download the *.sig file along with the existing file.
then in replace of md5sum checking use gpg --verify . this part I'm still looking into.
http://projects.archlinux.org/pacman.git master HEAD
git diff can be found here.
https://github.com/str1ngs/pacman/compare/sigs
this is just a rough outline I can post proper patches to the ML if needed.
In a nut shell it looks for a sig option in the PKGBUILD only. if it is set then it will download the sig
along with the source file.
it will then run check_checksigs and check downloaded files only. it also runs check_checksums after which is redundant but since its checking local files anyways I do not see the harm.
the only real issue I see here is not being able to set sig in makepkg.conf. however it does give the option for Allan and others to atleast sig check toolchain/gnu related builds on a per PKGBUILD basis.
We shouldn't be doing this two different ways, so please contact me (github, irc (same nick as here)) or follow the existing thread on the mailing list.