2.4.0 tarball signature missing

[pgajdos]

Hello,

thanks for the new release. Do you plan to publish all 'Assets' as in previous releases?

[cary-ilm]

We were hoping to rely solely on the GitHub release download process, which builds the tarballs on the fly, rather than building them separately and uploading them as ‘assets’, which has been the source of problems in the past getting them built properly. Is there a benefit to the explicit tarballs and signatures? If so, we can consider providing them, we’d just like to understand the benefits over the automated github process.

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 12:42 AM pgajdos ***@***.***> wrote: Hello, thanks for the new release. Do you plan to publish all 'Assets' as in previous releases? — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#565>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFC3DGKRUBWL53IP2QOBQGLQLBXMTANCNFSM4IZHMV7Q> .

-- Cary Phillips | R&D Supervisor | ILM | San Francisco

[pgajdos]

Explicit tarballs: no real benefit
Signatures: depends also on your view whether we should check we are really using the correct tarball; if you think it is redundant, we will adjust download process for the package

[lgritz]

I'm pretty sure that the tagged release tarballs you can get from github are signed. There's no reason to think we could either make the tarballs or sign them in any way that's better than what GitHub does automatically for a tagged release, right?

[pgajdos]

https://wiki.debian.org/Creating%20signed%20GitHub%20releases

Nevertheless, I am not advocating gpg signature implementation, I am just asking whether this change is intentional and therefore I have to change packaging process.

[pgajdos]

Closing.