1 |
Alexander Skwar schreef: |
2 |
> Holly Bostick schrieb: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> However, other than pointing this out by the simple expedient of |
5 |
>> confusing everyone further, Alexander's reply was less than |
6 |
>> helpful, since it neither pointed out why the answer given was |
7 |
>> presumably not correct, |
8 |
> |
9 |
> |
10 |
> Uhm. Yes, I did not point that out. Why and how should I? OP asked, |
11 |
> how a signature can be created. That's a clear question. I don't know |
12 |
> how to explain, why --gen-key is the wrong answer. It's just so plain |
13 |
> totally wrong, that I just don't know how to explain it. |
14 |
|
15 |
Well, if someone asks how to create a signature, and someone else |
16 |
answers how to provide a key pair, clearly someone is confused as to the |
17 |
fact that a signature is not a key pair. Saying so explicitly (i.e., |
18 |
"this will generate a key pair, not a signature, and they are not the |
19 |
same thing"), seems to be to be a simple way of saying why the answer is |
20 |
wrong. |
21 |
|
22 |
But that's just me and my conviction that people can't learn what you |
23 |
don't tell 'em (with the corollary assumption that people ask questions |
24 |
because they want to learn/know/understand something). |
25 |
> |
26 |
> |
27 |
>> or provided a correct answer if the answer given was in fact not |
28 |
>> correct. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> Oh, I did not? What about the "-s"? How's that not the "sign |
31 |
> command"? |
32 |
> |
33 |
|
34 |
Sorry, Alexander-- I missed the *second* mail in which you did this. |
35 |
|
36 |
In the mail quoted by Jason (the first mail), you were distinctly |
37 |
obscure :-) , and that's the one I was referring to. |
38 |
|
39 |
My mistake. |
40 |
|
41 |
Holly |
42 |
-- |
43 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |