On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 3:35 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ben Toews <mastahyeti@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> From: Ben Toews <btoews@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Currently you can only sign commits and tags using "gpg". >> ... >> have asked before on the list about using OpenBSD signify). >> --- > > Missing sign-off. > >> -gpg.program:: >> - Use this custom program instead of "`gpg`" found on `$PATH` when >> - making or verifying a PGP signature. The program must support the >> - same command-line interface as GPG, namely, to verify a detached >> - signature, "`gpg --verify $file - <$signature`" is run, and the >> - program is expected to signal a good signature by exiting with >> - code 0, and to generate an ASCII-armored detached signature, the >> - standard input of "`gpg -bsau $key`" is fed with the contents to be >> +signingtool.<name>.program:: >> + The name of the program on `$PATH` to execute when making or >> + verifying a signature. > > I think you do not want "on `$PATH`", as you should be able to > specify a full path /opt/some/where/not/on/my/path/pgp and have it > work just fine. The mention of "found on `$PATH`" in the original > is talking about the behaviour _WITHOUT_ the configuration, i.e. by > default we just invoke "gpg" and expect that it is found in the > usual measure, i.e. being on user's $PATH. What you are describing > in this updated explanation is what happens _WITH_ the configuration. > >> + This program will be used for making >> + signatures if `<name>` is configured as `signingtool.default`. >> + This program will be used for verifying signatures whose PEM >> + block type matches `signingtool.<name>.pemtype` (see below). The >> + program must support the same command-line interface as GPG. >> + To verify a detached signature, >> + "`gpg --verify $file - <$signature`" is run, and the program is >> + expected to signal a good signature by exiting with code 0. >> + To generate an ASCII-armored detached signature, the standard >> + input of "`gpg -bsau $key`" is fed with the contents to be >> signed, and the program is expected to send the result to its >> - standard output. >> + standard output. By default, `signingtool.gpg.program` is set to >> + `gpg`. > > I do not think the description is wrong per-se, but reading it made > me realize that with this "custom" program, you still require that > the "custom" program MUST accept the command line options as if it > were an implementation of GPG. Most likely you'd write a thin > wrapper to call your custom program with whatever options that are > appropriate when asked to --verify or -bsau (aka "sign")? If that > is the case, I have to wonder if such a wrappper program can also > trivially reformat the --- BEGIN WHATEVER --- block and behave as if > it were an implementation of GPG. That makes the primary point of > this long series somewhat moot, as we won't need that pemtype thing > at all, no? > Just because a signature is PEM encoded and claims to be a "PGP SIGNATURE", doesn't mean it can be understood or verified by a PGP implementation. Without different tools specifying different PEM types we would have no way of knowing which tool to route the signature to for verification. >> +signingtool.<name>.pemtype:: >> + The PEM block type associated with the signing tool named >> + `<name>`. For example, the block type of a GPG signature >> + starting with `-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----` is `PGP >> + SIGNATURE`. When verifying a signature with this PEM block type >> + the program specified in `signingtool.<name>.program` will be >> + used. By default `signingtool.gpg.pemtype` contains `PGP >> + SIGNATURE` and `PGP MESSAGE`. > > As Eric noted elsewhere, I suspect that it is cleaner and more > useful if this were *NOT* "pemtype" but were "boundary", i.e. > letting "-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\n" string be specified. > >> +signingtool.default:: >> + The `<name>` of the signing tool to use when creating >> + signatures (e.g., setting it to "foo" will use use the program >> + specified by `signingtool.foo.program`). Defaults to `gpg`. > > Will there be a command line option to say "I may usually be using > whatever I configured with signingtool.default, but for this single > invocation only, let me use something else"? Without such a command > line option that overrides such a default, I do not quite get the > point of adding this configuration variable. > > Thanks. -- -Ben Toews
