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.
At least this prevents impersonation of well-known publishers or their software
how?
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,...
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.
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.
how?
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,...
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).
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.