On 04/11/11 08:11, robert evert wrote:
Hey,
I somewhat like the idea
me too :)
I changed the signed package information to an information about
_unsigned_ packages, as those should be more interesting. Its a totally
informative message while installation is taking place.
Output takes place in the callback.c function. I needed to add another
int variable to the alpm_pkg_t, as I need to look for signatures in the
package information AND for a signature file.
If there is any chance that such functionality will be implemented in
pacman, I could provide some command line option to enable this
information ( enabling debug is NO alternative... ). Otherwise it was an
exercise for me and I will stop mentally hurting you guys ;)
-Rob
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The current output looks like this:
...
Proceed with installation? [Y/n]
checking package integrity...
loading package files...
checking for file conflicts...
upgrading abcde...
upgrading acpitool |Unsigned...
...
Proceed with installation? [Y/n]
(2/2) checking package integrity
[###################################################] 100%
(2/2) loading package files
[###################################################] 100%
(2/2) checking for file conflicts
[###################################################] 100%
(1/2) upgrading abcde
[###################################################] 100%
:: The following package is unsigned:
(2/2) upgrading acpitool
[###################################################] 100%
I am not really a fan of this for the following reasons:
1) I am a fan of keeping the output as minimal as possible and this
falls in the "unnecessary output" category for me.
2) The output comes too late to really do anything about the unsigned
package. It is now installed on your system. So what is this preventing?
3) If you do not want unsigned packages, you can use SigLevel = Required
to force packages to be signed.
So, in summary, I am not sure what problem this is trying to solve and
if it does indeed solve it.
Allan
