OpenPGP library?

Werner Koch wk@gnupg.org
Wed Aug 29 16:41:01 2001


On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 14:30:15 +0100, Matthew Byng-Maddick said:


> I don't want to argue with the rest of this message, however there are some
> obvious things standing out here, and before you say "well, submit a patch",
> I have, and it was very obviously ignored.
Actually those 2 mails are ticked as important in my mailer and I think it is really a good idea. I am currently working through the bug list and as soon as I have fixed all the important things, I am going to add some new functionality. Without a copyright assignment I am not able to apply your patch but I will rewrite it so that it will give a similar result. And GPGME will of course take advantage of that features.
> checking a signature, for example, doesn't need to have the private key,
> having this kind of functionality in a library would be *extremely* useful.
I agree with you here. If you start using a an interface like GPGME we can later very easy increase the performance -- if there is no other way to do it, we might as well include signature checking code into GPGME, the current plan however is to run gpg as a coprocess so there is no fork overhead anymore. There are some stupid things in gpg which make it really slow; I first want to address this before even thinking of other performance fixes. I did some tests with the signature verification code in GPGME and if the new coprocess model is used, it will be not noticable slower than direct linking. Ciao, Werner -- Werner Koch Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur g10 Code GmbH et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est. Privacy Solutions -- Augustinus