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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #80 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: Some additions to the EasyPG Assistant's manual
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2023 22:31:16 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

So after setting up the concept index, here comes what I originally
intended to add to epa.texi.  Plus my comments on you first review
(https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=64154#8) where I have
additional questions.  Unless otherwise stated I followed your
recommendations, however.

On 2023-06-17  09:44, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> +You can use EasyPG Assistant without any Emacs or GnuPG configuration
>> +whatsoever, for example to encrypt and decrypt files automatically
>> +with symmetric encryption, @xref{Encrypting/decrypting gpg files}.
>                                ^^^^^
> You want "see @ref" here, not @xref.  The latter is only pertinent at
> the beginning of a sentence, because it produces a capitalized "See".

Understood.  Actually, I copied the habit of the original authors there.
I fixed my own inappropriate @xrefs plus theirs.

>> +@xref{Key management} for a description of the format of that
>> buffer.
>                        ^
> Comma missing there.  Some old version of Texinfo need it.

I changed these as you have proposed.  But TBH I find that comma rather
disturbing.  This might be a non-native speaker's view, but isn't then

  "See @ref{Key management} for a description ...

easier to read *and* clearer in the texi file?  Or, IOW, do we *have* to
use @xref at the beginning of sentences because it has some other nice
properties?  Same question for @pxref?

>> +You can streamline this recipient selection step by customizing
>> +variables @code{epa-file-encrypt-to} and @code{epa-file-select-keys},
>> +see below.
> 
> Instead of "see below", please add a cross-reference to the node where
> these variables are documented.

Actually, here "see below" refers to the same node.  I use now "...
described further below in this section" to clarify that.

>> +As of June 2023, there are three active branches of GnuPG: 2.4,
>> +2.2, and 1.4.  All those branches should work flawlessly with Emacs
>>   with basic use-cases.  They have, however, some incompatible
>>   characteristics, which might be visible when used from Emacs.
> 
> Given the known issues with GnuPG 2.4.1, do we need to say something
> about that here?

Done that.

Finally, I noticed that node "GnuPG and EasyPG Assistant
Configuration(auth)" duplicates some of the information in section
"Caching Passphrases(epa)", which means that these will be out of sync
as soon as my changes have landed.  WDYT about that?

[0002-Add-basic-usage-information-and-fix-references.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Previous Next

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