rpmsign: support EdDSA signatures

[DemiMarie]

They were previously rejected

[pmatilai]

It certainly is not an RSA signature. See the discussion in #1202 and related.
As the multiple signature support work hasn't progressed anywhere (and it wont anytime soon), perhaps we should consider just reusing the DSA tag for this afterall. I guess that's what @mlschroe originally had in mind?

[DemiMarie]

It certainly is not an RSA signature. See the discussion in #1202 and related.
As the multiple signature support work hasn't progressed anywhere (and it wont anytime soon), perhaps we should consider just reusing the DSA tag for this afterall. I guess that's what @mlschroe originally had in mind?

I don’t particularly care which tag is used, so long as it works. Can we eliminate the distinction in RPMv6?

[pmatilai]

Seems like a revised version of #1500 accidentally ended up in this PR. No matter, I far prefer this version and splitting this to yet more PR's wouldn't actually help anything. Also, @mlschroe seems to be busy but he did indicate the preference for existing tags in #1202 so...

Thanks for the patches!

[Conan-Kudo]

I don’t particularly care which tag is used, so long as it works. Can we eliminate the distinction in RPMv6?

We'd need some way to tell what keys are what type, but there are certainly better ways to do it. Ideally, RPMv6 would also include fixing support for multiple signatures.