GnuPG and Python

James Henstridge james at
Mon Mar 2 18:31:21 CET 2009

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Igor Belyi <belyi at> wrote:
> Yes, I think this is the right assessment of the implementation difference
> between pyme and pygpgme - pyme uses SWIG to have python binding for gpgme
> functions and then uses extra python classes/packages for pythonizing GPGME
> interface where as pygpgme does most of the work using Pyhton C API
> directly. In short, pyme hides behind SWIG from handling difference in
> Python and GPGME versions, where as pygpgme takes approach of having less
> dependencies on another product.

The choice not to use swig was not an issue of dependencies, but
rather bad experience with it in the past.  I've seen too many memory
leaks or crasher bugs in swig based bindings to trust it.  I needed a
binding that could be used by a long running web service without
causing it to run out of memory.

> I didn't know that yum uses pygpgme since I'm more used to the Debian
> distribution which in its turn has pyme package but no pygpgme. As a result,
> Linux distribution could be another factor for choosing one versus another.
> Although, I wish Debian could pick up pygpgme in its package set as well to
> have a better test ground for usability of both.

I agree it'd be good to get pygpgme packaged for Debian/Ubuntu.  I
might try packaging it in my PPA when I've got some spare time.


More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list