Re: Upstream Tarball Signature Files
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 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
I very much doubt we will ever notice such a tiny amount of overhead.
> Why are we not using binary signatures in the first place, if we're
> going to mandate conversions?
We could go that route too, but I don't think the benefits are worth
changing the existing code that supports *.asc files. But I certainly
wouldn't object if the folks doing the work wanted to change. I just want
to support only one or the other.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>