wk at gnupg.org
Wed Aug 29 17:41:01 CEST 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
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
More information about the Gnupg-devel