On 10/20/05, Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi. Thanks for reminding me. I thought we were waiting for copyright > assignment papers? Have the FSF received papers for all authors? The
i'll send my pgg copyright assignment papers right now. (they came while i was away for a week.) my allout assignment has been on file for a while, happily. dunno about status of sascha's assignment. > best way to proceed is to wait for them to arrive, and then send me a > complete patch against the then-current CVS that I can install. I can > take care of installing it into Gnus CVS as well. > > I'm all for relocating pgg. However, I suggest lisp/pgg/ instead. > The lisp/ directory is pretty large as it is. lisp/pgg/ sounds like a good idea to me, too. ken [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Ken Manheimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > i just posted a new version of my allout patches which depend on the > > pgg revisions of sascha and mine, so i thought i'd post a query in > > this thread on the status of these patches - the new allout encryption > > features won't work without these pgg refinements in place. i also > > should mention rms' initiative to relocate pgg to the lisp/ directory, > > since pgg constitutes a facility in its own regard - i'm all for that. > > > > i'm not attaching the pgg changes to this message, but can easily do > > so if needed. > > > > ken > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > On 10/12/05, Ken Manheimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> as threatened, here is a complete patch against the current gnu.org > >> lisp/gnus repository. i've migrated all the allout encryption > >> functionality to pgg and exercised this stuff pretty substantially, > >> and am very comfortable with the way it works. > >> > >> there are a bunch of fixes, as well as extensions so the passphrases > >> can be managed by the calling functions, as well as refinement of the > >> passphrase caching mechanism (so multiple timeouts don't pileup for a > >> single passphrase - the last one replaces the prior ones). lotsa > >> goodies. the patch includes sascha wilde's symmetric-encryption > >> additions - basically, the whole deal. > >> > >> what it does not include is revision of the pgg-pgp.el and pgg-pgp5.el > >> modules, to track changes to the pgg api. i started in on that, only > >> to discover that they were already broken by the addition of a 'sign' > >> parameter to some of the encryption functions. there's no way to > >> repair that short of implementing the feature for the other packages, > >> and i'm not in a position to do that. (plus, i'm not sure i am > >> comfortable with the way it was done for pgg-gpg.) > >> > >> so it looks like pgg-pgp.el and pgg-pgp5.el are disfunctional already, > >> without my changes. i'm hoping that's not going to prevent the > >> introduction of my changes. > >> > >> i'm going to be heading offline for five days, starting tomorrow, so > >> it'll be a bit before i can respond to questions. i hope the patch > >> i'm sending (which includes detaild ChangeLog entries) will be > >> helpful to anyone that wishes to navigate them. > >> > >> and once again, i'm not sure the attachment will be delivered this > >> time. (it wasn't on a recent try, but then was on a subsequent > >> message. this is the first awkward gmail bug i've hit...) > >> > >> ken > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> On 10/10/05, Ken Manheimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > for those of you following the developments at home (:-), here's an > >> > incremental patch on top of what i sent out a few days ago. i fixed a > >> > small stack of bugs in pgg-gpg.el that settles my complaint about > >> > prompting with the secret key identity, and also filled in a small > >> > oversight in the changes i sent out a few days ago. > >> > > >> > while this could be the last pgg patch, i'm still developing, hence > >> > the incremental. i plan to send out a full patch when i've finished > >> > transitioning allout to pgg, at which point i expect my mucking with > >> > pgg to be settled. so, repository maintainers may want to wait for > >> > that, while i'm hoping those actively involved (eg, sascha) will > >> > scrutinize and, ideally, exercise these patches. > >> > > >> > we'll see if the attached patch makes it through this time. (i > >> > haven't re-attached it, which i think was the problem last time.) if > >> > not, look forward to a followup... > _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel