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

Re: Upstream Tarball Signature Files

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.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
> archive.

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

Reply to: