Guillem, On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 1:48 AM, Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi! > > On Mon, 2017-08-07 at 20:26:41 -0700, Paul Hardy wrote: > > Also, where signature files are desired, I think it would be beneficial > to > > also accept binary ".sig" files... > > There is no need for that, you can convert from ASCII armored to > binary signatures and the other way around easily. For example to > convert from .sig to .asc you can do the following: > > $ gpg --output - --enarmor unifont_upper-10.0.05.ttf.sig | \ > sed -e 's/ARMORED FILE/SIGNATURE/;/^Comment:/d' > \ > unifont_upper-10.0.05.ttf.asc > ... > > This could be done automatically as part of uscan, so you'd not even > need to do it manually! > Would you consider doing this conversion in a separate shell script as part of dpkg-dev (for example, named "sig2asc")? Then the script could be run from the command line, and uscan also could invoke it. If you would accept that, I could write a proposed shell script with a man page for you and file them as patches in a bug against dpkg-dev or mail them to you privately. I am the GNU Project maintainer for Unifont. I build the GNU upstream version and the Debian version with one higher-level "make" command at the same time. So I would not use uscan for OpenPGP format conversion; I only use it in my debian/watch file. With a separate shell script in place, maintainer documentation could be updated to mention it. After that, wording for a Policy change concerning upstream signatures could be crafted that would refer to that capability. So I would postpone adding mention of upstream signature file use in the Policy Manual until those components are in place (shell script and maintainer document updates). Thank you, Paul Hardy
