vouch VS enquirer

If you don't know the author, signatures do nothing. Anybody can sign their package with some key. Even if you could check the author's identity, that still does very little for you, unless you know them personally.

It makes a lot more sense to use cryptography to verify that releases are not malicious directly. Tools like crev [1], vouch [2], and cargo-vet [3] allow you to trust your colleagues or specific people to review packages before you install them. That way you don't have to trust their authors or package repositories at all.

That seems like a much more viable path forward than expecting package repositories to audit packages or trying to assign trust onto random developers.

[1]: https://github.com/crev-dev/crev [2]: https://github.com/vouch-dev/vouch [3]: https://github.com/mozilla/cargo-vet

Alternatives to cargo-vet that has been mentioned before here on HN:

- https://github.com/crev-dev/crev

- https://github.com/vouch-dev/vouch

Anyone know of any more alternatives or similar tools already available?

I've created Vouch in an attempt to address this problem:

https://github.com/vouch-dev/vouch

Vouch lets users create and share reviews for NPM packages. Project dependencies can then be checked against those reviews.

Vouch uses extensions to interface with package ecosystems. It's simple to create a new extension. Extensions currently exist for NPM, PyPi, and Ansible Galaxy.

I'm currently working on a website to index known reviews and publish official reviews.

I hope you guys find it useful! Drop by the Matrix channel if you have any feedback to share: #vouch:matrix.org

jonschlinkert (Jon Schlinkert) · GitHub

Although I'm happy there is a way to bundle Node.js apps with support for pnpm, and for a modern-ish version of Node.js, it's somewhat slow in my experience to build locally. Interactivity doesn't have the greatest ecosystem there, especially with TypeScript. Best library I've found is Enquirer.

{ "name": "@jonschlinkert/omit-deep", "description": "Recursively omit specified keys from an object", "tags": ["object", "deep", "remove", "omit"], "version": "0.3.0", "author": "Jon Schlinkert (https://github.com/jonschlinkert)", "repository": "jonschlinkert/omit-deep", "bugs": "https://github.com/jonschlinkert/omit-deep/issues", "license": "MIT" }

In case you need to ask for user input, optionally you can use a prompt file. This is very useful to customize the output of the generator. Prompts are defined using a library named Enquirer.

> I don't fully understand why packages like this are so popular.

It actually works like this: Author X develops `iseven`, `isodd`, etc. No one really downloads such packages. Author X then develops `importantPackage` which does do something useful developers out here download. Now `iseven`, `isodd` are downloaded alongside `importantPackage`.

My point is, we should recognize certain NPM authors as toxic, but I guess "freedom of speech/code" stops us from doing so. Example of such an author: https://github.com/jonschlinkert/

something like enquirer

You're thinking of Jon Schlinkert, publisher of 1435 packages on npm.

It's insanely funny to me that these packages exist while one of his bigger projects (https://github.com/enquirer/enquirer) lists the following reason under "why use it":

> Lightweight - Only one dependency, the excellent ansi-colors by Brian Woodward.

It's written by this guy, who shits out micro libraries by the hundreds. He moved the project to another user under the pretense that he was learning to program back then, but a lot of his stuff is similarly inconsequential micro libraries.