On 18.03.2019 20:49, Ted Unangst wrote:
> Andre Stoebe wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I, too, would like to have a way of signing the gzip archive in a
>> reproducible way, so here's a diff that uses -n, similar to gzip(1).
>
> Thanks. I think it's more consistent to store a zero time stamp. This diff is
>
Andre Stoebe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I, too, would like to have a way of signing the gzip archive in a
> reproducible way, so here's a diff that uses -n, similar to gzip(1).
Thanks. I think it's more consistent to store a zero time stamp. This diff is
a little simpler and avoids some variable reabuse.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 05:11:54PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> Marc Espie wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 03:02:42PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > > Andre Stoebe wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I, too, would like to have a way of signing the gzip archive in a
> > > > reproducible way, so
Marc Espie wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 03:02:42PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > Andre Stoebe wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I, too, would like to have a way of signing the gzip archive in a
> > > reproducible way, so here's a diff that uses -n, similar to gzip(1).
> > >
> > > However, if
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 03:02:42PM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote:
> Andre Stoebe wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I, too, would like to have a way of signing the gzip archive in a
> > reproducible way, so here's a diff that uses -n, similar to gzip(1).
> >
> > However, if that's a bad idea, I'm fine with
Andre Stoebe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I, too, would like to have a way of signing the gzip archive in a
> reproducible way, so here's a diff that uses -n, similar to gzip(1).
>
> However, if that's a bad idea, I'm fine with continuing to use an
> unsigned gzip archive and creating a sigfile with
Hi,
I, too, would like to have a way of signing the gzip archive in a
reproducible way, so here's a diff that uses -n, similar to gzip(1).
However, if that's a bad idea, I'm fine with continuing to use an
unsigned gzip archive and creating a sigfile with signify.
Regards
Andre
Index: signify.1
Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2019/02/23 18:02, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > signify -z adds a date= line to the header, but nothing reads it. It's also
> > not very useful, since it's outside the signature. It would still not be
> > useful, because nothing about the signify design cares about when
On 2019/02/23 18:02, Ted Unangst wrote:
> signify -z adds a date= line to the header, but nothing reads it. It's also
> not very useful, since it's outside the signature. It would still not be
> useful, because nothing about the signify design cares about when something
> was signed. It does cause
signify -z adds a date= line to the header, but nothing reads it. It's also
not very useful, since it's outside the signature. It would still not be
useful, because nothing about the signify design cares about when something
was signed. It does cause trouble, however, because signing the same
10 matches
Mail list logo
