Language for preference troubles

[Adeodato Simó]

* David Shaw [Fri, 13 Feb 2004 16:45:59 -0500]:

> Now, here is the text that I used (for the English translation):

    I usually just lurk in here, but I'd like to make a suggestion (or
    rather a comment) about the line:

> gpg: WARNING: key 98223BC3 contains preferences for unavailable algorithms:

    Perhaps it would be worth specifying not only "unavailable" but also
    the reason it is so, i.e.: "algorithms which weren't compiled in
    this version of GnuPG", or if "compiled" sounds too technical,
    "included" or something similar.

    The point would be to avoid the user into thinking that GnuPG does
    not support algorithm X "per se", but that it was simply excluded
    from *his* copy of the program. Of course, should it be the case
    that GnuPG truly lacks support for a specific algorithm, that should
    be clearly pointed out so.

    Now it's a matter of whether the extra verbosity is not "too much
    bloat" in order to get things explained.

    Just some thoughts.
    Cheers.

-- 
Adeodato Simó (a.k.a. thibaut)
    EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | IM: my_dato [jabber.org] | PK: DA6AE621
 
The first step on the road to wisdom is the admission of ignorance. The
second step is realizing that you don't have to blab it to the world.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20040214/7da687c3/attachment.bin