fingerprint of key

Duane Whitty duane at
Fri Aug 18 03:48:36 CEST 2017

Hash: SHA256

On 17-08-17 09:20 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Mon 2017-08-14 22:12:18 -0300, Duane Whitty wrote:
>> Actually one suggestion, the way options and commands are
>> specified look the same.  It might make things clearer if there
>> was a difference in the way they are expressed on the command
>> line.  Perhaps keep the "--" for options and enter commands
>> without the "--".
> I also prefer this kind of "subcommand" syntax -- it matches what
> tools like git and notmuch use.  However, that's a pretty radical
> departure from the historical GnuPG command line, and it's likely
> to break all sorts of existing things that expect to use the
> canonical interface.
> If we're going to make radical departures like that, perhaps we
> should be specifying an entirely new interface that just does "the
> sensible bits" without all the rest of the arcana.
> --dkg
Well, I'm not familiar enough with the arcana to say whether it should
be done away with or not but, I am a big believer in software not
trying to guess what I want.  As you said, in version 2.1 GnuPG would
have complained that I hadn't entered a command, correct?  Does this
also mean it would have not carried out any action.  In my opinion
that would be the correct behaviour.  I am also a fan of the Unix
tradition of software that completes without error not having any
output unless you have asked for output.  Error output going to stderr
of course :-)

I have to admit to being a little hesitant making these types of
comments because I don't feel I contributed enough (if anything) to
have earned that right.  But perhaps as a user the comment is a small
contribution.  I hope it is seen that way and not as a complaint.

Best Regards,

- -- 
Duane Whitty
duane at


More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list