Re: Upstream Tarball Signature Files
On Sun, 13 Aug 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 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 armor just wastes space, and will do so for every signature in the
Why are we not using binary signatures in the first place, if we're
going to mandate conversions?