Mon Dec 10 22:15:01 2001
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 03:54:18PM -0500, Frank Tobin wrote:
> David Shaw, at 15:26 -0500 on 2001-12-10, wrote:
> > GnuPG encrypts files. It could be argued that it would be nice to
> > encrypt directories, but in the Unix-ish way of thinking, that is not
> > GnuPG's job. After all, why build in a miniature directory lister, if
> > the user can just use ls, which is presumably perfect?
> One word: emacs :)
Indeed. What's the old joke? Something like "Emacs is a great
operating system, but Unix has a better editor."
> > All that said, I think a --recursive flag in GnuPG is not unreasonable.
> > It does raise the question: what does it mean to encrypt a directory?
> > Do you want to end up with one big file that contains the contents of
> > the directory, or a directory full of encrypted files? (I'd say the
> > second - the first is what "tar" is for).
> I should note that on FreeBSD, grep, chown, chgrp, chmod, and probably
> several others each has a -R option for recurision.
Don't forget 'ls' :)
Those examples are one of the reasons I think that a recursive option
in GnuPG is reasonable. Without it, GnuPG violates the principle of
It's a tougher question with GnuPG, since it is security-related
software. Recursion may make things harder to debug/prove correct.
David Shaw | email@example.com | WWW http://www.jabberwocky.com/
"There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
We don't believe this to be a coincidence." - Jeremy S. Anderson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6c-cvs (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----