On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 09:28:14AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> OK, so my question then is: what does just-gpgsm support look like?
> 
> Do we literally add gpgsm.program? My thought was that taking us the
> first step towards a more generic config scheme would prevent us having
> to backtrack later.

I think the signingtool prefix is fine, or something similar.  My "just
gpgsm" proposal is literally just "check for PGP header" and "check for
CMS header" in parse_signature and dispatch appropriately.

> There are also more CMS signers than gpgsm (and I know Ben is working on
> a tool). So it feels a little ugly to make it "gpgsm.program", since it
> really is a more generic format.

Okay, so signingtool.cms.program?  signingtool.smime.program?

I suppose Ben still intends to use the same command-line interface as
for gpgsm.

> Or would you be happy if we just turned the matcher into a whole-line
> substring or regex match?

A first line regex would probably be fine, if you want to go that way.
That, I think, is generic enough that we can make use of it down the
line, since it distinguishes all known formats, TTBOMK.

It would be nice if we could still continue to use gpg without having to
add specific configuration for it, at least for compatibility reasons.
-- 
brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204