python bindings for gpgme

Ben McGinnes ben at
Wed Jun 1 07:33:43 CEST 2016

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 03:21:39PM +0200, Justus Winter wrote:
> > * Why was the swig based approach of pyme chosen over the manually build
> >   interface of pygpgme? 
> I don't know the details, but Ben did some work porting the pyme
> bindings to Python3 well before my time, so we thought it was best to
> pick that up.  Also, the pyme way should be easier to maintain,
> because functionality added to gpgme should become available without
> touching the bindings in most cases.

I've got a duck out in a moment, so I'll come back to this thread when
I get back.  For now, though: the pyme project was first started back
in around 2000 or 2001 and at that time SWIG was the best choice.
Still, it is very dated now and there are better ways of doing it,
which is why there are plans to replace pyme in its entirety with
bindings using CFFI, which is getting a lot of attention from the PyPy
developers and has already been leveraged very effectively in the project (pyca).

The pyme code here is basically just the result of porting the version
of pyme on PyPI from Python 2 to Python 3.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20160601/b9de2bf8/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list