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

Re: Why Do Developers Continue to Sign with GNUPG



Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> writes:

> On 2025-08-10 14:35:20 +0000 (+0000), fosres@posteo.de wrote:
>> Since Debian is a major Linux distribution I want to ask why
>> software developers continue to digitally sign their code an
>> software packages with GNUPG when there are simpler alternatives
>> such as minisign (https://jedisct1.github.io/minisign/), signify, or
>> age (https://github.com/FiloSottile/age).
> [...]
>
> While I can't speak authoritatively on the matter, you hint at the
> reason already when you use the word "continue." The other solutions
> you cite are mere infants compared to the ages of Debian (1993) and
> PGP (1991). Change takes time, and supplanting things that are already
> working well enough requires that the benefit and interest needed to
> overcome the inertia of the status quo must exceed any related effort
> and disruption that implies. In short, the alternatives have to be
> way, way, way superior for an existing system to get replaced.

I believe the SSH signature format is old enough to be a relevant option
here.  SSH signatures didn't used to offer any advantage compared to
PGP, but I think now that an GnuPG-incompatible OpenPGP specification
has harmed the PGP ecosystem and made the PGP world less coherent, I
think SSH signatures offers an interesting alternative.  FWIW, Guix is
working on adding support for it, so that both SSHSIG and PGP signatures
may be used.

/Simon

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: