I think “secret” may be too generic and “libsecret” is not ideal in case
an implemention comes along that is named differently. How about “secret-service”?
On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 4:36 PM tastytea <gentoo@tastytea.de> wrote:
I think “secret” may be too generic and “libsecret” is not ideal in case
an implemention comes along that is named differently. How about “secret-service”?
I think this is a good idea.
I think “secret” may be too generic and “libsecret” is not ideal in case
an implemention comes along that is named differently. How about
“secret-service”?
I think this is a good idea.
And "keyring"? I am not sure if users not familiar with "libsecret" will >understand what "secret*" means in this context
On 24 December 2021 08:48:08 UTC, Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
caseI think “secret” may be too generic and “libsecret” is not ideal in
an implemention comes along that is named differently. How about
“secret-service”?
I think this is a good idea.
And "keyring"? I am not sure if users not familiar with "libsecret" will >understand what "secret*" means in this context
Definitely a good idea. And I second "keyring", seeing as this term is
also in use on other OSes.
--
Marecki
On Sat, Dec 25, 2021, 5:19 AM Marek Szuba <marecki@gentoo.org> wrote:
On 24 December 2021 08:48:08 UTC, Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> wrote:
I think “secret” may be too generic and “libsecret” is not ideal in
case an implemention comes along that is named differently. How about >> > “secret-service”?
I think this is a good idea.
And "keyring"? I am not sure if users not familiar with "libsecret" will >understand what "secret*" means in this context
Definitely a good idea. And I second "keyring", seeing as this term is
also in use on other OSes.
--
Marecki
"keyring" conveys the appropriate meaning, imho.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 296 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 83:31:34 |
Calls: | 6,658 |
Calls today: | 4 |
Files: | 12,203 |
Messages: | 5,333,525 |
Posted today: | 1 |