I'm running 21.5.28 on Mac OS X. I can't update the package index. After selecting a download site and clicking Tools>Packages>Update Package Index

it whirs and clicks for a bit then complains (this is from the lossage buffer): Process error: GnuPG error. Package database not updated BAD SIGNATURE claiming to be from 'nil' Verifying... Loading mc-gpg...done Loading mc-gpg... Loading mc-toplev...done Loading mc-toplev... PGP version set to GPG. > :/pub/mirrors/xemacs/beta/experimental/packages/package-index.LATEST.gpg...done > /xemacs/beta/experimental/packages/package-index.LATEST.gpg...100% (325.4 KB/s) > s/xemacs/beta/experimental/packages/package-index.LATEST.gpg...97% (316.9 KB/s) > s/xemacs/beta/experimental/packages/package-index.LATEST.gpg...96% (331.8 KB/s) > s/xemacs/beta/experimental/packages/package-index.LATEST.gpg...92% (322.6 KB/s) > s/xemacs/beta/experimental/packages/package-index.LATEST.gpg...90% (310.7 KB/s) > s/xemacs/beta/experimental/packages/package-index.LATEST.gpg...88% (227.4 KB/s) ... I have the following versions of GPG available: % gpg --version gpg (GnuPG) 1.4.7 Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions. See the file COPYING for details. Home: ~/.gnupg Supported algorithms: Pubkey: RSA, RSA-E, RSA-S, ELG-E, DSA Cipher: 3DES, CAST5, BLOWFISH, AES, AES192, AES256, TWOFISH Hash: MD5, SHA1, RIPEMD160, SHA256, SHA384, SHA512, SHA224 Compression: Uncompressed, ZIP, ZLIB, BZIP2 % gpg2 --version gpg (GnuPG) 2.0.3 Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions. See the file COPYING for details. Home: ~/.gnupg Supported algorithms: Pubkey: RSA, ELG, DSA, ELG Cipher: 3DES, CAST5, BLOWFISH, AES, AES192, AES256, TWOFISH Hash: MD5, SHA1, RIPEMD160, TIGER192, SHA256, SHA384, SHA512 Compression: Uncompressed, ZIP, ZLIB, BZIP2 Googling for the BAD SIGNATURE error didn't yield anything useful. I didn't see anything in the FAQ about it either. Any ideas about what went wrong?

Adrian> Hi Skip, which sites have you tried? Do they all show the same Adrian> problem?

skip(a)pobox.com writes: > Adrian> Hi Skip, which sites have you tried? Do they all show the same > Adrian> problem? Arrgh. That stupid PGP stuff, which never really worked properly for most people (and Steve Youngs who put it in has since removed it from SXEmacs). Set this variable to nil and be happy, I think: `package-get-require-signed-base-updates' is a variable declared in Lisp. Value: t Documentation: *If non-nil, try to verify the package index database via PGP. If nil, no PGP verification is done. If the package index database entries are not PGP signed and this variable is non-nil, require user confirmation to continue with the package-get procedure. The default for this variable is the return value of `package-get-pgp-available-p', non-nil if both the "Mailcrypt" package and a suitable PGP executable are available, nil otherwise.

Yep, and I've been recommending it get ripped out of XEmacs for quite some time now. Is a patch against your git repo ok, Steve?

(I've given up on cvs.xemacs.org because 9 times out of 10 I can't complete a cvs up, and 10 times out of 10 I can't do a successful commit).

On 8/17/07, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org&gt; wrote: > Steve Youngs writes: > > > Yep, and I've been recommending it get ripped out of XEmacs for quite > > some time now. Is a patch against your git repo ok, Steve? > > Sure. Anything reasonably fresh is acceptable as a patch.

I've cloned that. What is its future status as you sever your ties with Tsukuba-dai? Any chance of getting it moved to gwyn?

On 8/17/07, Steve Youngs <steve(a)sxemacs.org&gt; wrote: > Personally, I think that would be a bad idea. gwyn is nowhere near > what it used to be in your day, Steve. Full discs, slow flakey > connections (at least to me), and no admins anywhere to be found. I've had as many problems getting stuff ftp'ed from there as I've had getting back up to date from cvs.xemacs.org, but I assumed it was a local firewalling issue. I'm no big fan of CVS and only put our code under it because of expediency and multi-user commit features. Does git handle multi-user commit well?

(I look at the zillion different developer trees all aimed at the single-point-of- failure Linus tree and say "Hell no!")

On 8/18/07, David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org&gt; wrote: > "SL Baur" <steve(a)xemacs.org&gt; writes: > > (I look at the zillion different developer trees all aimed at the > > single-point-of- failure Linus tree and say "Hell no!") > > The elevated status of Linus' > repository is an organizational one, not a technical. That's what I meant and wasn't sure about. Thanks.

On 8/18/07, David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org&gt; wrote: > If Linus dropped out of the game, development would continue. > People would at some point converge to some favorite preferred > points to pull from, but there would be no deadlock or vacuum in > the mean time. I understand that and I've been reading lkml for some months now again. I worry about where the convergence point would be, but I presume it would sort itself eventually. Personally, I just don't like dictators. Ever. No matter how benevolent and not even me. I created xemacs-review for a reason. Linus has an informal linux-review, I just prefer it to be a formal arrangement with equal privileges on the core source tree.

On 8/19/07, David Kastrup <dak(a)gnu.org&gt; wrote: > I have my doubts that you really have > understood the way Linux development works in relation to git.

I'm not severing ties with Tsukuba-dai at this time, but I won't have physical access and if it goes down for some reason, it may take a while to get a restart. As for Tux, they've had various system troubles and their admins have been relatively unresponsive to requests for guidance. I haven't checked recently, but our mailing lists got moved to a different host (calypso) with restricted space (which is a principal reason why we have only a subset of list archives published).

Steve Youngs writes: > Yep, and I've been recommending it get ripped out of XEmacs for quite > some time now. Is a patch against your git repo ok, Steve?

Sure. Anything reasonably fresh is acceptable as a patch.