python bindings for gpgme

Bernhard Reiter bernhard at
Tue May 31 21:23:48 CEST 2016

Hi Justus,

Am Dienstag, 31. Mai 2016, 15:21:39 schrieb Justus Winter:

> Quoting Bernhard Reiter (2016-05-31 14:39:18)
> > ** Is it to be released with the next gpgme, is there a schedule for
> > this?)
> Yes.  Aiui a release is imminent, maybe in the next week or so.

good to know! :)

> >  Shall I link to master?
> Yes please.


> > * 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.

In my experience what counts most for python developers is that the 
bindings are very pythonic. In my limited experience the SWIG layer
makes this harder to do. Also the additional abstraction really pays out 
if you use SWIG to create binding for a number of languages. Otherwise it 
is just one more abstraction layer to learn when you want to debug or 
extend things.

So far I haven't done a comparison between pygpgme and pyme.
From my point of view the most pythonic one should be used.
pygpgme is already available for python3 for a few years longer than
pyme, I believe.


-- (CEO) (Founding GA Member)
Intevation GmbH, Osnabrück, DE; Amtsgericht Osnabrück, HRB 18998
Geschäftsführer Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20160531/bd570675/attachment.sig>

More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list