Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] global USE=gpg
we have many local gpg useflags which basically just enable gpg. Should we merge these to one global useflag? Additionally we have a few gpgme useflags. See also https://bugs.gentoo.org/679634 What are your ideas? We have also have a bunch of USE=pgp and USE=openpgp, both of which are more correct than USE=gpg. Yeah, typical case of "formally correct thing being way more difficult to understand than colloquially practical thing" ... You are right. I would prefer the formally correct "OpenPGP" after reading a bit more. This is how it is named in the RFCs [1] and this is what we mean. If we use either gpg or pgp it will raise new questions and confuse the users. It is better to write 4 additional characters and make it simple and precise. We can explain all details in the description then. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4880 -- Best, Jonas OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] global USE=gpg
On 30/12/2023 16.54, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: we have many local gpg useflags which basically just enable gpg. Should we merge these to one global useflag? Additionally we have a few gpgme useflags. See also https://bugs.gentoo.org/679634 What are your ideas? We have also have a bunch of USE=pgp and USE=openpgp, both of which are more correct than USE=gpg. I am always confused when people use "gpg" to talk about OpenPGP. Yeah, typical case of "formally correct thing being way more difficult to understand than colloquially practical thing" ... It is only a matter of time until the more users of gnupg-alternative libraries, like sequoia or librnp, appear. USE=gpg is probably already sometimes a misnomer, and will definitely be one if we make it a global USE flag and there are packages that declare it without pulling in gpg. - Flow OpenPGP_0x8CAC2A9678548E35.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] global USE=gpg
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2023, Andreas K Huettel wrote: >> > we have many local gpg useflags which basically just enable gpg. >> > Should we merge these to one global useflag? >> > >> > Additionally we have a few gpgme useflags. >> > See also https://bugs.gentoo.org/679634 >> > >> > What are your ideas? >> > >> >> We have also have a bunch of USE=pgp and USE=openpgp, both of which are >> more correct than USE=gpg. > Yeah, typical case of "formally correct thing being way more difficult to > understand than colloquially practical thing" ... So, how about using gpg as the flag's name and mentioning OpenPGP in its description? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] global USE=gpg
> > we have many local gpg useflags which basically just enable gpg. > > Should we merge these to one global useflag? > > > > Additionally we have a few gpgme useflags. > > See also https://bugs.gentoo.org/679634 > > > > What are your ideas? > > > > We have also have a bunch of USE=pgp and USE=openpgp, both of which are > more correct than USE=gpg. Yeah, typical case of "formally correct thing being way more difficult to understand than colloquially practical thing" ... -- Andreas K. Hüttel dilfri...@gentoo.org Gentoo Linux developer (council, comrel, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice) https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Dilfridge signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] global USE=gpg
On Sat, 2023-12-30 at 00:41 +0100, Jonas Stein wrote: > Dear all, > > we have many local gpg useflags which basically just enable gpg. > Should we merge these to one global useflag? > > Additionally we have a few gpgme useflags. > See also https://bugs.gentoo.org/679634 > > What are your ideas? > We have also have a bunch of USE=pgp and USE=openpgp, both of which are more correct than USE=gpg. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
