Closed ronaldtse closed 4 years ago
@ronaldtse I'm starting to work on this. Do I think right that currently we stick to idea not to have rnpk/rnp but to squash all commands into the single utility, rnp?
@ronaldtse Could we close this now (ignoring my previous comment)? Now we have what is described in this issue - two commands, rnp/rnpkeys, and a library.
Certainly @ni4 ! Sorry missed this message!
Currently we serve these binaries:
rnp
for "operations using keys", encrypting/decrypting, signing/verifying.rnpv
for purely verifyingrnpkeys
for "operations on the keyset", such as key generation, key managementPros:
gpg
will expect one command to handle all functions. ( @randombit )Cons:
I suggest:
rnp
andrnpv
into the same binary, and keeprnpk
separate for key management.rnp
andrnpk
.(this also relates to #2, #4)