Re: Signed archives (preliminary patch)

[Ludovic Courtès]

Nikita Karetnikov <address@hidden> skribis:

>>> Actually, the problem with making ‘assert-valid-signature’ public is
>>> that it raises &nar error conditions.
>
> I’ve looked through the code; now I need even more information.  Please
> elaborate.
>
>>> It could be changed to raise a more generic &signature-error, but then
>>> ‘restore-file-set’ would have to guard against it to re-throw it along
>>> with a &nar-error (making a compound condition.)  And then ui.scm would
>>> figure it out.  Blech.
>
> Why would it need a more generic error?  Why would ‘restore-file-set’
> have to rethrow it along with an &nar-error?  How’s ‘ui.scm’ relevant?
> It’d be great if you could paste the code you were talking about.

ui.scm is relevant because part of the reason why structured exceptions
à la SRFI-35 are interesting is that it allows you to provide users with
detailed error reports (like “invalid hash while restoring file FOO from
PORT”.)

Here’s a proposal: just copy/paste ‘assert-valid-signature’, adjust it
to your needs, and I’ll see how we can factorize that later.

Works for you?

Thanks,
Ludo’.