On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 00:02 +0200, Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > On Mo, 2008-03-31 at 23:49 +0200, Daniel Schierbeck wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 17:25 +0200, Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > > > On Mo, 2008-03-31 at 17:19 +0200, Daniel Schierbeck wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 16:17 +0200, Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > > > > > On So, 2008-03-30 at 19:10 +0200, Daniel Schierbeck wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, 2008-03-30 at 18:07 +0200, Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > > > > > > > This adds the signature tab that Daniel added with two minor > > > > > > > cleanups - > > > > > > > to allow using it if gpg is not installed and to find installed > > > > > > > icons. > > > > > > I actually think it will still throw an error if gpg is not > > > > > > installed on > > > > > > the system, as the gpg wrapper used just calls the executable. We > > > > > > can > > > > > > merge it, but it'll require further improvements before it can be > > > > > > released. > > > > > Ahh, that's true. I hadn't seen you had imported the gpg module. Yeah, > > > > > it doesn't make an awful lot of sense now, so I guess we'll have to > > > > > add another check. > > > > > > > Ideally we could find a *real* GPG library, though I didn't really have > > > > that much luck last time. How about using Seahorse? That would > > > > introduce a new dependency, but it could be optional. > > > I'd be happy to rely on Seahorse if it's optional. The nice thing about > > > seahorse would also be that it should be able to give us GTK+ dialogs > > > for signing revisions rather than prompting on the (not visible to the > > > user) console. > > I'll take a look at the Seahorse D-Bus API, although I'm not sure how > > stable it is. > It would be nice to have the seahorse stuff in, but I think it shouldn't > prevent us from merging the current signatures branch as it is. > > I've just added some code that makes us skip the revision tab if the gpg > executable wasn't found. > > What else should be fixed before the signatures branch can be merged?
Well, if it works, then I think we should merge. Could I either get any of you to start signing your revisions, or just report how my signatures show up? I'd like to try the case of a revision with an untrusted signature. Currently I can only see my own (bzr.dev seems not to work), so that covers only unsigned and signed by trusted key. Btw, I've been working with the (almost completely undocumented) Seahorse D-Bus API, and I've got key verification working[1]! Now I'm just looking at displaying the trust level. We may even be able to set it directly from the revision view! I'd still love some Python bindings for libcryptui, their widget library, though. 1. <lp:~bzr-gtk/bzr-gtk/seahorse-integration> Cheers, Daniel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- bzr-gtk mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.canonical.com/mailman/listinfo/bzr-gtk
