Re: Upstream Tarball Signature Files
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> We do when the binary sig is small enough to be stored along with the
> inode, instead of requiring an entire filesystem block (4KiB), and the
> armored signature is not small enough for that :-( Of course, this
> really depends a lot on the filesystem, etc.
I'm not sure what signatures you're looking at. Maybe ones with lots of
separate signers? A typical *.asc file with one signer is about 500
> May I humbly suggest that, *if* a change is going to be made, we switch
> to ".sig" (binary) and ".sig.asc" (armored), or .sig.gpg / sig.gpg.asc?
> As in "let's not overload .asc to mean armored signature, when it only
> means ASCII text"...
Note that I'm arguing for no change, just documenting the existing support
for *.asc upstream signatures. This will imply that anyone who wants to
include an upstream signature that's provided in *.sig format will need to
convert it to *.asc, but that's not a *change*. That's the current state
of the archive.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>