Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <h...@debian.org> 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 the binary format; the >> conversion shouldn't lose or change any data.) > The armor just wastes space, and will do so for every signature in the > archive. I very much doubt we will ever notice such a tiny amount of overhead. > Why are we not using binary signatures in the first place, if we're > going to mandate conversions? We could go that route too, but I don't think the benefits are worth changing the existing code that supports *.asc files. But I certainly wouldn't object if the folks doing the work wanted to change. I just want to support only one or the other. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
