SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org&gt; writes: > It depends upon which version of the package-index file you are using.

Offhand, I didn't even know what package-index was in question. I already had the July 29 sumo tarballs installed, and was just toying with the package manager when I ran into this bug. As it happens, I just now manually acquired the latest mailcrypt-2.02 package and installed it...and now when I run the exact same sequence in an "xemacs -q", it claims that entries are not signed at all. This is notwithstanding the fact that I now have a package-index.LATEST.pgp with modtime of just moments ago, plus the prev. version as package-index.LATEST.pgp~, with modtime July 29 21:50.

???

> You can either strip out the signature, or update to the most recent > package-index file on the FTP site (which includes a pointer to an > updated version of the mailcrypt package).

As I said, I already got that later mailcrypt. But I have no idea how or why any of this has occurred. Installing the latest mailcrypt shouldn't have affected the determination of *whether* the packages are PGP-signed. In fact, now, after starting up the package manager (and telling it to continue even though entries are not signed), the mailcrypt library is not even loaded -- the variable mc-version is not known.

I am *so* confused.