Language for preference troubles

[David Shaw]

On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 11:40:51AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * 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.

I thought about saying "unincluded" rather than "unavailable", but
there are three reasons why a given algorithm might not be available:

1) The algorithm is available, but the user used --disable-cipher-algo
   or the like in their gpg.conf file or on the command line.

2) The algorithm comes with GnuPG, but this particular copy doesn't
   have it.

3) The algorithm doesn't come with GnuPG at all (IDEA, or some new
   algorithm that hasn't been added to OpenPGP yet).

"unavailable" covers all of these, but "unincluded" only covers 2 & 3.

David
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 330 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20040214/67365abf/attachment.bin