On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 13:28, jc.gnupg...@unser.net said: > I beg to differ. Given the classic Unix philosophy of chaining small tools > which do their job well, GnuPG is already way too complex, especially for > casual users. I generally prefer the ImageMagick concept of small tools
I would have send a very simlar answer. Maybe focusing on code complexity instead of complexity as perceived by the user. No rule without exception: We have one tool in GnuPG which kind of violates the Unix philosophy by providing a clone of the tar command. However, we have two reason for that a) There is no tar on Windows and we are not able to use the script we use on Unix and b) the encrypted tar format requires a pretty special version of tar and todays tar tools are not all able to create that variant of the format (ustar). To do image encryption according to whatever standard it is best to either modify an image tool to make use of gpgme (or if really needed of gpg directly) or to write a small tool which does the same using the standard image libraries and gpgme. Libreoffice recently did it in the first way and I wish someone sits down and writes a tool to do the same for PDF. Salam-Shalom, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
pgpdef_oKcQr8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
