Re: [PATCH 8/8] gpg-interface: handle alternative signature types

> Ben Toews <mastahyeti@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> From: Ben Toews <btoews@github.com>
>>
>> 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?
>

>> +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.