New option --recipient-file

Neal H. Walfield neal at
Thu Jul 7 10:36:43 CEST 2016

On Thu, 07 Jul 2016 10:18:10 +0200,
Werner Koch wrote:
> On Wed,  6 Jul 2016 21:41, neal at said:
> > Aren't options usually parsed in order?  As such, shouldn't later
> > keyring/keybox options not be ignored?
> I see no practical use for first giving --no-keyring and then specifying
> a keyring.  The reason why --no-keyring is useful is that
> --no-default-keyring without a --keyring option would use the default
> keyring anyway.

I was thinking of scripts that specify some options, but allow the
caller to override them by providing later options.  This trivial with
gcc, for instance, in which the last -Ox option takes effect.  Thus, a
makefile can specify -On and the user can override it by specifying
something else in the CFLAGS.  In this particular case, it perhaps
really isn't that useful.  But to improve semantic consistency, I'd
prefer it.


More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list