ankostis ankostis at gmail.com
Tue Oct 10 20:21:54 CEST 2017

On 10 October 2017 at 20:46, Leo Gaspard <leo at gaspard.io> wrote:
> On 10/10/2017 06:45 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:> (where is the FAQ
> maintained, btw?  how is one expected to submit
>> patches?)
> I based my quotes on https://dev.gnupg.org/source/gnupg-doc.git ,
> directory web/faq, running `git grep Linux`.
>> I suspect that many minimal Linux-based operating systems (particularly
>> one that uses sbase instead of the GNU userland) will *not* feature a
>> suitable GnuPG tool.  So the statement above is probably more accurate
>> if you change it to GNU/Linux.
>> Do you have a list of sbase+Linux distros that we can look at for
>> comparison?
> Hmm, I was thinking sta.li would have gnupg, but it looks like it
> doesn't come embedded. Thanks for noticing!
> I would thus like to withdraw this statement, as well as the other one
> you pointed out.
> That said, I wonder whether the sentence with “all GNU/Linux distros
> feature a suitable GnuPG tool” would make sense at all, given GnuPG is,
> as pointed out by Mike, part of the GNU operating system, which would,
> if I understand correctly, mean that as soon as the distribution
> includes GNU it must include GnuPG? (I may easily be wrong in my
> interpretation of “part of the GNU operating system”) If I'm correct and
> this would be a pleonasm, then maybe replacing it with “most Linux
> distros feature a suitable GnuPG tool, with the notable exception of
> Android” would make more sense? Then again maybe GNU/Linux would be both
> more precise and simpler indeed, despite the pleonasm.

Maybe start using "Gnu Variants"[1], because that is technically precise.
For instance, this name includes also `cygwin`, which requires the
typical configure-make-install procedure?

Those compiling GnuPG for other platform may clarify the situation.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_variants

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list