Paul Hardy <unifoun...@gmail.com> writes: > If it is permissible to rename a ".sig" file as ".asc", I think that is > the best solution because it copies the original signature file > unmodified. I tried it previously and it worked, but it seemed to me > like masquerading (because a binary file obviously is not an > ASCII-armored file) and not right.
Oh, sorry, I'd missed that it was the binary format. Yeah, in that case 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 first part of my request was going to suggest adding ".asc" files in > examples. The Policy Manual gives sample lists of files that appear in > the Files and Checksums sections (5.6.21 and 5.6.24) of ".dsc" and > ".changes" files using "example_1.2.orig.tar.gz" and > "example_1.0.orig.tar.gz". Do you think it is appropriate to mention > that those sections may contain signature files of the form > "example_1.[02].orig.tar.gz.asc", showing that file name with the other > files? There seems to be no mention of such a file in the Policy > Manual. Sections 5.6.21 and 5.6.24 are where I thought of requesting > changes. I think it would be appropriate to document how to include upstream signature files in a Debian source package, absolutely. (That's quite a bit more than just adding them to examples.) -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>