@hko@dvzrv I wonder, did you "market" this tool in any way? I can imagine that this has a lot of value for distributors of openpgp cards and they might want to include it in newsletters and such. Also, I didn't see a compatibility matrix in the docs, but this goes a long way to find "is this expected to work with my piece of hardware?", not to mention vendors love being listed in those things
@hko perfect, then. Make a compatibility matrix with all checkmarks. I'm not kidding, this kind of information is so useful to give users reassurance that stuff works and is supported. This is absolutely not the common expectation for specialized hardware like this, as you know better than most ;)
Honestly, my assumption is that stuff should just work, and to the best of my ability, I aimed for that.
I did not even have the idea of enumerating hardware, because if I was aware of a problem, I'd try to just fix it.
I am currently revising documentation for @archlinux packagers, so that we can make use of a more streamlined and transparent process when preparing packager signing keys.
Apart from that, I believe that @nitrokey documentation for the hardware tokens could be extended to make use of oct, but that would probably also mean making it work on more Operating Systems.
@hko@dvzrv One thought: please consider making this a 1.0 version. It's a weird quirk of the rust ecosystem that even for tools with this range of features and completeness, version numbers remain a 0.X for a very long time. This by far does not deserve a label on it that says it's incomplete or experimental software.
@hko@dvzrv are there concrete plans of changes in the next few months? Otherwise, just make it a 1.0 and a 2.0 later on 🤷♂️ unless you have a concrete need to be super precise here, I don't think you are doing your users a favor holding back.
Add comment