Skip to content

Find undoc nits#4144

Closed
richsalz wants to merge 7 commits intoopenssl:masterfrom
richsalz:find-undoc-nits
Closed

Find undoc nits#4144
richsalz wants to merge 7 commits intoopenssl:masterfrom
richsalz:find-undoc-nits

Conversation

@richsalz
Copy link
Contributor

This is a replacement for #4136.

@richsalz richsalz added branch: master Applies to master branch approval: review pending This pull request needs review by a committer labels Aug 12, 2017
@richsalz richsalz self-assigned this Aug 12, 2017
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I always thought that convention is that square brackets denote something you don't have to provide. So with this in mind doesn't suggested modification mean "you have an option to pass dash alone"? Comment applies in multiple cases.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

On side note, this page is misleading in sense that it lists sha and blake2[bs] as standalone commands. These don't work. It might be appropriate to add a note that those that are provided for backward compatibility and should not be used in new scripts. BTW, it refers to list --digest-commands, which seems to be misleading at least on gost count. I mean if you issue apps/openssl gost apps/openssl it will emit SHA256 hash value...

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As for the side note. One can wonder if it's sustainable approach to "synthesize" commands. Maybe it would be more appropriate to "freeze" to options that are documented and are working, and force users to adhere to dgst -algorithm for all other cases...

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The problem is that the digests/encryption that are available depends on the build options. So I tried to say "any available" most of the time. But I know it's a side note :)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Synopsis in enc.pod starts with

B<openssl enc -ciphername>

and is silent about that you can simply use ciphers' names to invoke on enc command. Wouldn't it be appropriate to do same even in dgst.pod, start the synopsis with dgst -digestname? I'd say it would...

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Commit 5fe7a8c tries to address this.

@richsalz
Copy link
Contributor Author

I also wrote manpages for the two commands that were missing.

Rich Salz added 5 commits August 13, 2017 17:40
Always use -[cipher] and -[digest] for ciphers/digests.
Split up multiple flags into a single entry in the synopsis.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why not lowercase the CApath and CAfile uses around here too?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Because, sadly and stupidly, that is what the flags are and now we have to live with it.

apps/openssl.c Outdated
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was about to make a change to suppress the initial \n in a new PR. Fortunately, I remember seeing this.

Copy link
Contributor

@paulidale paulidale left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

My comment was more a question if something was missed than a suggestion for a change.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I find "or verify" misleading. dgst does verification, but signatures. As far as plain digests go, it only generates digest.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, but see the -verify and -prverify flags.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, but "generate or verify message digests" makes you believe that that you can 'dgst -sha256 file > file.sig' and then verify file.sig. Description paragraph gets it right. Maybe "perform digest operations" would be appropriate?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

that's better; additional commit pushed

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Originally question also was what does [-[digest]] mean? That passing dash alone is meaningful? I mean shouldn't it be at least [-digest]. And by "at least" I mean that I see nothing wrong with original [B<-I<digest>>]...

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok. New commit pushed that uses B<-I<cipher>> or digest, for all places that I could find.

doc/man1/enc.pod Outdated
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Same here, what's -[cipher]?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Already fixed in the latest commit.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

forgot to push, just did

Copy link
Contributor

@dot-asm dot-asm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Previous red cross from appveyor is auto-cancel thing.

@dot-asm dot-asm added approval: done This pull request has the required number of approvals and removed approval: review pending This pull request needs review by a committer labels Aug 14, 2017
levitte pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 14, 2017
Write missing prime.pod and srp.pod
Implement -c in find-doc-nits (for command options)
Other fixes to some manpages
Use B<-I<digest|cipher>> notation
Split up multiple flags into a single entry in the synopsis.
Add -1 and missing-help to list command.

Reviewed-by: Andy Polyakov <[email protected]>
(Merged from #4144)
@richsalz
Copy link
Contributor Author

Squashed and merged. Thanks for the feedback, Andy, it improved the PR

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

approval: done This pull request has the required number of approvals branch: master Applies to master branch

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants