Anyway, the reality is we *don’t* use processes and pipes for important things, *because* they fail roughly like this. You can say “but error codes” all you want, we don’t do this with browsers or ssh or gzip or REPLs (hello, Jupyter) or anything else. Because this hits a wall.https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/996231278276919296 …
This is harder with commandline apps (especially ones as dedicated to backwards compat as gpg) because people don't tend to introduce "gpg2" style "new interface here" breaks. It's a bigger change than library sonames (where you can at least install both at once).
-
-
But yes, would it be nice for gpg to have a different, more modern interface? Sure. I just don't think blaming this bug on that is fair or reasonable. Something to work towards perhaps, but not a Big Glaring Problem.
-
What I believe is gpg will have a higher failure rate than it should: A) If it ever returns plaintext by default after authenticated decryption failure, and B) If complex consumers continue interfacing with gpg via pipes and processes, due to impoverished error handling
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This is true, and demonstrates why library consumers don’t get what they need from command line interfaces. Qemu has three interfaces because of this and it’s not great I must admit.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.