2015-02-17 17:31 GMT+01:00 Martin Paljak <mar...@martinpaljak.net>: > So, generally speaking: if the upstream has not catered to the OSX > folks and somebody on the internet has, I would not blame GPGTools > guys for doing it. Yes, it would be nice if one at least tried to > contribute back to upstream and to work in an open manner, but at > least they DO something, for what there is apparent need.
Well, there are by now three ways get GPG running on a Mac, we have had this summary on the Enigmail list just this weekend: https://lists.enigmail.net/pipermail/enigmail-users_enigmail.net/2015-February/002505.html I tried to get GnuPG working under Mavericks via MacPorts, to no avail, because there was no pinentry for the Mac. There are only two ones, viz. from GPGTools and the one from Patrick Brunschwig's project. The third option Ludwig mentions in his post is not a current version. I have not had the time to test Patrick's distro so far, but if it works it looks more interesting to me because, as you've pointed out, the GPGTools have decided to go all commercial including, I didn't realise this before, a closed code repository so that no one can study the code? Is this true? I can't believe it. Enigmail has discussed recently to drop support for GnuPG1, making gpg-agent/pinentry a crucial issue on the Mac. The standard version of pinentry from MacPorts does not work properly out of the box. Anyway, alternatives should be mentioned on the GnuPG pages because—I agree to the OP—this is too important an issue, GnuPG also being used by many people who seriously depend on its security. The question is, can we use GnuPG on the Mac and rely on it? Regards, Jürgen. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
