GNU bug report logs -
#58340
Age encryption
Previous Next
Reported by: Nicolas Graves <ngraves <at> ngraves.fr>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2022 17:06:02 UTC
Severity: normal
Done: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Your bug report
#58340: Age encryption
which was filed against the guix-patches package, has been closed.
The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to 58340 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.
--
58340: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=58340
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems
[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]
[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi Nicolas,
Nicolas Graves 写道:
> Just as a reminder, this patch cannot be merged before 58340.
Thanks, I realised that after I sent it. I'll treat (and close)
them as one bug for this reply.
I've pushed all 3 patches as
ac553ba68e535810085dd838e48e4fa6ac553e67 et al with the following
mods:
> * gnu/packages/password-utils.scm (passage): New variable.
I fixed up the commit message to match the name, and addressed the
following ‘guix lint’ warnings:
pass-age <at> 1.7.4a0: no article allowed at the beginning of the
synopsis
age <at> 1.0.0: sentences in description should be followed by two
spaces
Whilst there, I turned @code{age-encryption.org/v1} into a full
@url{}, and fixed up upstream's ‘config’ & ‘UNIX’ slang.
> * gnu/packages/golang.scm
> (age): New variable.
> (go-filippo-io-cmd-age): New variable.
> (go-filippo-io-cmd-age-keygen): New variable.
^^
Our changelogs are never indented, you'd write:
> * gnu/packages/golang.scm (age, go-filippo-io-cmd-age)
> (go-filippo-io-cmd-age-keygen): New variables.
…but in this case, I was bold and removed the two
go-filippo-io-cmd-age* packages completely. I moved ‘age’ to (gnu
packages password-utils).
The partial recursion in the go-* variants made me nervous (and
would probably prevent the move, although I didn't try).
If these variants are needed for something, it's not pass-age, and
we can review them separately if/when needed. Is that acceptable?
> I would think that choices need to be made
Princip(al)ly: the choice to reuse an existing package name was
FiloSottile's, for the sake of a pun. Much as I like bad puns, I
think that's rather rude. It's not hard to search for free
package names, e.g., [0].
> that this one would not annoy a lot.
Technically: it would silently replace users' games with some
encryption tool. That's problematic even if those users are few.
Similarly: had the game been added after this ‘passage’, I would
have grumpily agreed to ‘passage-game’ :-) But it wasn't.
But: I think your ’pass-age’ solution is perfect. Thanks!
FiloSottile should consider it.
Kind regards,
T G-R
[0]: https://repology.org/project/passage/versions
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]
[Message part 5 (message/rfc822, inline)]
Hi guix!
Here's a few patches to package the encryption tool age.
I'm probably going to send some other derived tools (passage notably).
--
Best regards,
Nicolas Graves
This bug report was last modified 2 years and 211 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.