Re: Upstream Tarball Signature Files

Russ, On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 7:59 PM, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > This isn't a debian-policy matter... > My thinking was it would be beneficial for Debian Policy to suggest (but not require) use of upstream OpenPGP signatures when available, because such signature

Re: Upstream Tarball Signature Files

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

Re: Upstream Tarball Signature Files

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017, Russ Allbery wrote: > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh 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. >

Re: Upstream Tarball Signature Files

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh 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

Re: Upstream Tarball Signature Files

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh 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

Processed: user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org, limit package to debian-policy, usertagging 844431 ...

Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > user debian-pol...@packages.debian.org Setting user to debian-pol...@packages.debian.org (was spwhit...@spwhitton.name). > limit package debian-policy Limiting to bugs with field 'package' containing at least one of 'debian-policy' Limit