GNU bug report logs - #64154
29.0.92; Provide additional details on GnuPG and EPA usage in epa.texi

Previous Next

Full log

Message #59 received at 64154 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jens Schmidt <jschmidt4gnu <at> vodafonemail.de>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 64154 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: 29.0.92; Provide additional details on GnuPG and EPA usage in
 epa.texi
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2023 09:13:25 +0200

On 2023-07-02  06:59, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> Because people are very unlikely to think about "GnuPG version 
> compatibility".  They are likely to think about "version 
> compatibility" and perhaps just "compatibility".  Just put yourself 
> into the shoes of such a reader, and ask yourself what would you
> type at Info-index's prompt.

But after all, I *am* such a reader.  And I would type that, because "i"
is my main entry point to Info manuals, not "g".

My question here really is: Why would it be bad to have that additional
index entry?  It does not break completion, it is not overly generic, it
is just ... there, ready for some less likely reader to search for it.

(Spoiler: *That* one entry is still in, even in my latest patch.  I
understood your comment:

>>> They are not redundant, since they all start differently.  But I 
>>> would suggest to consider the first one for removal.

to mean that removal is recommended but optional.  Please let me know if
you meant otherwise.)

>> At least w.r.t. to capitalization you both seem to fundamentally 
>> disagree (quotes from "Index Entries(texinfo)"):
>> 
>> [...] capitalizing only proper names and acronyms that always call
>> for uppercase letters. This is the case convention we use in most
>> GNU manuals' indices.
> 
> My personal rule is to use capital letters in index entries only
> when absolutely necessary.  It is not necessary with "gpg" or
> "gnupg".  The above citation says something similar.

I would have considered "EasyPG Assistant" a proper name and the "GNU"
in "GNU Privacy Guard" an acronym, but anyway ...

>> Attached a third patch - please review 2nd and 3rd combined against
>> 1st.
> 
> Does it mean the patch you sent is just part of the changes?

Yes, it is.  It undoes some of the changes of the previous patch.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.