• progandy@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    8 months ago

    At least this prevents impersonation of well-known publishers or their software. Maybe all changes to metadata like the description should require a manual review even for established packages.

    • wiki_me@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      At least this prevents impersonation of well-known publishers or their software

      how?

      • progandy@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        That depends on the depth of the review, e.g. verifying the submitter is a member of the project, the software name does not conflict with a well known name,…

        • wiki_me@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          verifying the submitter is a member of the project

          That’s a different requirement as far as i can tell (When you do that you get the “plus” sign next to the name on the store).

          the software name does not conflict with a well known name,…

          It should conflict, the point is that some random dude can create a package and people could use it.

          They can review and check that the URL in the manifest used to build or install the package is from upstream, but that can later be changed, it would be better to have some system where you need to whitelist URL’s i think.