<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - support for digital signatures" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16770#c82">Comment # 82</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - support for digital signatures" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16770">bug 16770</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:aacid@kde.org" title="Albert Astals Cid <aacid@kde.org>"> Albert Astals Cid</a> <pre>(In reply to Adrian Johnson from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=16770#c80">comment #80</a>) > (In reply to Albert Astals Cid from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=16770#c70">comment #70</a>) > > For the pdfsigverify it seems we kind of agreeed on the compromise to call > > it pdfsig that only does verification right now but in the future may > > suppport signing? > > This is the only thing left that I think needs fixing before the initial > release. A couple of questions: > > - Given that we want to keep the option open for using pdfsig to perform > other signature operations, should the default behavior when only a pdf file > is specified be to verify the signature? Or should we just indicate whether > the pdf is signed and use an option to enable verification? I think defaulting to verification makes sense as the "non destructive thing to do". > - Is '-c' the best option name for "don't perform certificate validation"? Honestly i don't think spending much time on discussing the option name makes much sense, we just need to document it properly and that's it. > > We also need a man page. Yep.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>