On Monday 09 February 2015 20:27:09 Werner Koch wrote: > Back in October Smári posted an article with the problems he encountered > while integrating GnuPG into mailpile. See > https://www.mailpile.is/blog/2014-10-07_Some_Thoughts_on_GnuPG.html . > > I asked him whether I may comment on this over at gnupg-user and with > 2.1.0 out of the way I started to draft a response. However, I then > figured that 2.1 bug fixes are more important and thus I did not > finished that response. Find below what I already wrote. I yanked the > text from the browser, thus there may be formatting issues; I also > skipped parts which are not relevant for my comments. > > > One of the things I'm largely to blame for in Mailpile is the GnuPG > > interface. It's a chunk of Python code that executes the GnuPG binary, > > tosses information at it, and figures out what to do with the > > output. There are lots of libraries for doing this, but after a great > > deal of exploration I found that all of the Python libraries that did > > this were insufficient for our needs, and the only thing crazier than > > manually forking out GnuPG in our situation would be to use the PGPME > > library.
Hehe. This reminds me of the time when I improved KMail's support for GnuPG, PGP 2, PGP 5 and PGP 6 parsing the human readable output (with LANG=C to avoid breakage due to i18n). But that was more than 15 years ago. I wish there would have been something like gpgme back then. Regards, Ingo
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
