> I don’t particularly care which tag is used, so long as it works. Can we
> eliminate the distinction in RPMv6?
We'd need _some_ way to tell what keys are what type, but there are certainly
better ways to do it. Ideally, RPMv6 would also include fixing support for
multiple signatures.
--
Merged #1571 into master.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1571#event-4458259053___
Rpm-maint mailing list
Seems like a revised version of #1500 accidentally ended up in this PR. No
matter, I far prefer this version and splitting this to yet more PR's wouldn't
actually help anything. Also, @mlschroe seems to be busy but he did indicate
the preference for existing tags in #1202 so...
Thanks for the
@DemiMarie pushed 1 commit.
acfa8f488ae13ccf49f1b004fe0e44d420d93c04 rpmsign: support EdDSA signatures
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
@DemiMarie pushed 2 commits.
aa963fa5121dfe270adad92038b064637a2db0b3 hdrblobInit() needs bounds checks too
e84d135305f8befd2426feaeed21969254c0360f rpmsign: support EdDSA signatures
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
View it on GitHub:
> It certainly is not an RSA signature. See the discussion in #1202 and related.
> As the multiple signature support work hasn't progressed anywhere (and it
> wont anytime soon), perhaps we should consider just reusing the DSA tag for
> this afterall. I guess that's what @mlschroe originally had
It certainly is not an RSA signature. See the discussion in #1202 and related.
As the multiple signature support work hasn't progressed anywhere (and it wont
anytime soon), perhaps we should consider just reusing the DSA tag for this
afterall. I guess that's what @mlschroe originally had in
