release 1.45 and multiple PGP signatures

release is the tool that I use to manage software releases. This version adds support for signing a tarball with multiple PGP keys at once. For WebAuth, we have an official signing key, but I also wanted to add my personal signature. The minimum supported version of Python was also bumped to 2.5 (see below for why).

You can get the latest version from my scripts page.

Normally, I wouldn't announce this to everyone, since it's a fairly minor change, except I had a question and a quick Python note.

The question: how does one get GnuPG to verify multiple signatures? When I run GnuPG on the resulting detached *.asc file created by this new code, I get the following:

gpg: WARNING: multiple signatures detected.  Only the first will be checked.
gpg: Signature made Thu 10 Jan 2013 03:58:43 PM PST using RSA key ID 5736DE75
gpg: Good signature from "Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu>"
gpg:                 aka "Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>"
gpg:                 aka "Russ Allbery <eagle@windlord.stanford.edu>"
gpg:                 aka "Russ Allbery <eagle@eyrie.org>"

That's nice, I suppose, but it's not as helpful as it could be. Why not verify both signatures and report all of the results? I searched both the gpg man page and the Internet for some option I'm missing, without any luck. (Searching Google for that exact message amusingly turns up lots of verbatim output from Debian repository verification and almost nothing else.)

If anyone knows, send me email (rra@stanford.edu or any other convenient address), and I'll update this post with the answer.

UPDATE: gpg can currently only verify multiple signatures if the signatures are from keys with the same class and digest. I was attempting this with a 2048-bit RSA key and a 1024-bit DSA key, which gpg does not support. (Yet another reason to replace the WebAuth signing key with a newly-generated key.) Thanks to Philip Martin and Bernhard R. Link for the information!

The note is that, way back when I was first learning Python, one of the things that bothered me the most was the lack of safe program execution. The best available was os.spawnv(), which left something to be desired. If you too were bothered by this but don't program in Python enough to keep track of the current state of the art, there's now a subprocess module that has much saner interfaces that work properly, do reasonable things, and avoid the shell. It was added in Python 2.4, with some nicer interfaces added in Python 2.5, so it's fairly safe to use at this point.

Posted: 2013-01-10 16:28 — Why no comments?

Last spun 2013-07-01 from thread modified 2013-01-13