[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Upstream Tarball Signature Files

Paul Hardy <unifoundry@gmail.com> writes:

> If it is permissible to rename a ".sig" file as ".asc", I think that is
> the best solution because it copies the original signature file
> unmodified.  I tried it previously and it worked, but it seemed to me
> like masquerading (because a binary file obviously is not an
> ASCII-armored file) and not right.

Oh, sorry, I'd missed that it was the binary format.  Yeah, in that case
it can't just move the file -- it has to ASCII-armor it.  But still, I
think that's the right thing for the tools to do, not add another file.
(The ASCII format is completely equivalent to the binary format; the
conversion shouldn't lose or change any data.)

> The first part of my request was going to suggest adding ".asc" files in
> examples.  The Policy Manual gives sample lists of files that appear in
> the Files and Checksums sections (5.6.21 and 5.6.24) of ".dsc" and
> ".changes" files using "example_1.2.orig.tar.gz" and
> "example_1.0.orig.tar.gz".  Do you think it is appropriate to mention
> that those sections may contain signature files of the form
> "example_1.[02].orig.tar.gz.asc", showing that file name with the other
> files?  There seems to be no mention of such a file in the Policy
> Manual.  Sections 5.6.21 and 5.6.24 are where I thought of requesting
> changes.

I think it would be appropriate to document how to include upstream
signature files in a Debian source package, absolutely.  (That's quite a
bit more than just adding them to examples.)

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: