On 09/04/14 21:32, Dave Reisner wrote: > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 09:13:33PM +0100, Simon Kelley wrote: >> Dnsmasq-2.69 is here. >> >> http://www.thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/dnsmasq-2.69.tar.gz >> >> and (new) a signature >> >> http://www.thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/dnsmasq-2.69.tar.gz.sign >> > > Hi Simon, > > Thanks for providing GPG signatures for the source tarballs. Could I ask > why you've chosen this particular extension?
Ignorance, plain and simple. I'm new to this stuff, and not familiar with the conventions. > GPG normally expects .asc > (ascii armored) or .sig (raw binary) extensions so this is somewhat > unexpexcted. Verification still works, but it's not documented anywhere > in gpg's manpage as an expected extension. To complicate matters > somewhat more, kernel.org uses .sign as an extension but treats the > situation differently -- they provide a single .sign file but multiple > compression formats for the source tarballs. The signature validates > against the decompressed tarball. This doesn't seem to be the case here, > as the .sign validates against the gzip tarball. > > I humbly ask that you use .asc for the signature. > Sounds sensible, I'll change it now, before any dependencies form on my initial setup. Cheers, Simon. _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss