On 10 October 2017 at 20:46, Leo Gaspard <l...@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 _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
