Re: dpkg-sig support wanted?
Simon Richter <Simon.Richter@hogyros.de> writes:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> Well, assuming .changes is not snake-oil, then why should in-deb sigs be
>> called snake-oil? After all, according to you they essentially do the same
> Not exactly. .changes files say that the archive should be changed. If
> the archive were to accept any signed .deb just because a developer
> signed it, that would be bad(tm).
The only differences between accepting signed debs and signed changes
files are that changes file have some additional infos (like who gets
the ACK mails) and what set of debs go together.
Both features are still needed with signed debs and nobody has any
intention of changing them. The only request so far is to not reject
debs that are also signed themself.