Re: Upstream Tarball Signature Files
Paul Hardy <unifoundry@gmail.com> writes:
> Osamu: I did not mean just accept one format--I meant accept both ".asc"
> and ".sig" files for ".changes", ".dsc", and uscan files. I suppose all
> three manuals you mentioned could be modified to document this.
> I had not brought this up until the latest lintian check on a test build
> returned an error, but then Sean noted that the lintian error report is a
> bug.
> If there are no strong objections to this change, I will file a wishlist
> bug as an "issue" for debian-policy about this. I will be away next
> weekend so I will try to put together something before then.
Hi Paul,
This isn't a debian-policy matter. Support for ".sig" files in *.changes
and *.dsc would be a bug against dpkg and possibly also in DAK for the
archive to handle them, and in watch files would be a bug against
devscripts.
However, I don't think it's a good idea to support multiple file names for
the same thing. Instead, package building tools should probably just
rename *.sig files to *.asc if upstream uses *.sig, the same way thhat
they rename upstream source tarballs to follow our naming convention
(which upstream almost never uses). The bug may be best filed against
devscripts for uscan --download to rename the signature on download.
It's almost never a good idea to introduce synonyms into any sort of
standard. It adds a lot of complexity that has to be maintained forever,
to very little benefit.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: