Bug#884367: [pkg-gnupg-maint] Bug#884367: gnupg2: Please bring skel files back as documentation/examples
On Thu 2017-12-14 12:47:12 -0500, Matthew Gabeler-Lee wrote: > My case was looking for essentially documentation on the recommendations > for some parameters that I think default to empty. the recommendation is to use the default :) > In particular I was having trouble with keys.gnupg.net and was > wondering if there was a newer recommended server to use, hoping to > find that in an updated copy of that sample file. for modern gpg, the "keyserver" argument in gpg.conf is deprecated anyway, since that's something that should go in dirmngr.conf instead. but dirmngr defaults to a sensible choice -- see the --keyserver documentation in dirmngr(8) for details: If no keyserver is explicitly configured, dirmngr will use the built-in default of hkps://hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net. This is better than keys.gnupg.net because it doesn't leak your keyserver traffic directly to your ISP. I'm closing this ticket because i think it's been resolved, but feel free to reopen it if you have more suggestions. In general, the recommendation should be "use the defaults" -- and in cases where that's not happening, we should fix the defaults! feel free to open more bug reports if there are defaults that you think can be improved. even if upstream doesn't want to change them right now, we're willing to improve the defaults for debian users in general. Thanks for taking care to look into the details of the GnuPG packaging! --dkg
Bug#884367: [pkg-gnupg-maint] Bug#884367: gnupg2: Please bring skel files back as documentation/examples
On Thu, 14 Dec 2017, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: iirc, upstream has completely dropped the skeleton files completely from their source The current debian package in stable still has the patch to remove the files so they are there in that version. But I just checked the package in /testing and indeed upstream has removed those files there. I guess that renders most of my wishlist item here moot :/ I'm not convinced that adding our own example skeleton file to usr/share/doc/gpg/examples is worth deviating from upstream. Agreed, given upstream has removed the examples, having Debian ship its doesn't make sense. can you give me an example of what you'd like to see in such a skeleton file? My ideal config file is the empty file :) My case was looking for essentially documentation on the recommendations for some parameters that I think default to empty. In particular I was having trouble with keys.gnupg.net and was wondering if there was a newer recommended server to use, hoping to find that in an updated copy of that sample file. -- -Matt "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away". -- Philip K. Dick GPG fingerprint: 0061 15DF D282 D4A9 57CE 77C5 16AF 1460 4A3C C4E9
Bug#884367: [pkg-gnupg-maint] Bug#884367: gnupg2: Please bring skel files back as documentation/examples
On Thu 2017-12-14 10:35:32 -0500, Matthew Gabeler-Lee wrote: > While the rationale listed in 0077-g10-remove-skeleton-options-files.patch > for not having gnupg write the default config files to the user home > directory is sound, removing the sample files from the distribution entirely > is not so good. This seems to be what /usr/share/doc/_package_/examples/ is > for. It would be nice/helpful to have these skel files available there for > reference, and that would avoid the "documentation that's always out of > date" problem, as now they would be properly placed as documentation, and be > kept up to date. iirc, upstream has completely dropped the skeleton files completely from their source, and the documentation is consolidated in the gpg(1) man page itself. I'm not convinced that adding our own example skeleton file to usr/share/doc/gpg/examples is worth deviating from upstream. can you give me an example of what you'd like to see in such a skeleton file? My ideal config file is the empty file :) --dkg
