Comment by tptacek

1 year ago

There are much, much better solutions for packaging!

Which you do not describe, but set that aside: A post that honestly said "we do not like PGP, but here is our alternate plan" would be great. On an actual better solution, I don't think anyone has proposed a good one. Here is the closest I've seen from PyPi (or at least linked from this post as describing their thinking), from 10 years ago:

"Everything is Terrible So What Do We Do?

Bluntly put, I don’t know for sure. This isn’t an already solved problem nor is it an easy to solve one."

https://caremad.io/posts/2013/07/packaging-signing-not-holy-...

What I'll say on PGP is the perfect is the enemy of the good. It's not a tech anyone has much fun using, but in a group setting, used regularly, I have found it can fade into the background at least. I don't want to go any further down the "is PGP good or bad" rabbit hole than that.

But if you have a better solution for package security, please do describe it here.

  • The current documented plans revolve around TUF (https://peps.python.org/pep-0458/, https://peps.python.org/pep-0480/). Those links have probably bit rotted a bit by now, progress has been slow on implementing them for a number of reasons (mostly OSS reasons, volunteers etc).

    There's also a general consensus (not documented) that sigstore will play some kind of role here. Possibly in-toto as well?

    In the 10 years since my post that you referenced, we've laid some decent plans I believe, and have just slowly been working on them, to the extent that we've been able to given our own time constraints.

  • It's not really up to you or me, it's up to PyPI. For my part: their logic seems pretty sound.