a few GPGME issues

Marcus Brinkmann Marcus.Brinkmann at ruhr-uni-bochum.de
Tue Apr 23 01:01:02 CEST 2002

On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 08:58:17PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > The other way to get this information is to look at the result of the
> > operation, if it is No_Passphrase, you know that there has not been a useful
> > passphrase supplied by the user.  This information is not made available to
> > you at the time you would like to have it (when the passphrase callback is
> > called for clean up), but the whole passphrase callback is a bit of a hack
> > anyway, compared with gpg-agent.
> That information is at the wrong abstraction layer currently so while I
> can use that it would result in less clean code than my current hack
> (which seems to hit a bug in gpgme but I'll post about that seperately :)

We can think about rectifying this when we change/extend the interface to
supply the individual data in a useful format (userid etc).

> > Mmmh, ok.  It would be convenient to have the set function return the old
> > value, supposing that this is good enough for you.  But as there are two
> > values to give back this doesn't work too well anyway.  I suppose
> > 
> > void gpgme_get_passphrase_cb (GpgmeCtx ctx, GpgmePassphraseCb *cb, void **hook)
> > 
> > will do the job for you (resp for progress meter)?
> That would be fine.

I have added those functions to the CVS repository.

`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org brinkmd at debian.org
Marcus Brinkmann              GNU    http://www.gnu.org    marcus at gnu.org
Marcus.Brinkmann at ruhr-uni-bochum.de

More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list