begging for pyme name change

Daniel Kahn Gillmor dkg at
Tue Oct 18 06:49:47 CEST 2016

Hi Vinay--

On Mon 2016-10-17 18:01:17 -0400, Vinay Sajip wrote:
> I chose to adopt the wrapper approach because the other approach was
> just too hard to get working on Windows, and didn't offer all the
> functionality the executable did. Can we be sure that's no longer the
> case? Windows does seem a poor relation (for example, no separate
> builds of just gpgme.dll seem to be available, no support for
> compilation with Visual Studio toolchains, just gcc, and so on).

A few of these are great concrete requests.  Have you tried asking for
them explicitly?  Opening a ticket at
requesting, for example, a separate and distributable windows build of
gpgme.dll seems like it would be a good step.

It's possible that no one on the GnuPG team actually has a visual studio
toolchain available, though -- if you do have access and you can get it
building, maybe you'd be up for contributing the appropriate VS .proj
files (or whatever they're using these days?  it's been years since i've
used VS myself).

> For me, it's always been about ease of use across POSIX and Windows. I
> don't believe an endorsement by the GnuPG team of any project as the
> "blessed" way of interacting will be enough to swing many users over
> from one project to another, unless ease of use is reasonably
> comparable.

I agree with you that usability and a sensible and well-supported
interface are what will win the day for developers.  Official "blessing"
on its own clearly isn't sufficient.

What i'd really like to see is an "officially blessed" version that also
offers a simple and sensible and well-supported interface, though :)

> I even use gpg 1.x in preference to gpg 2.x in some contexts because
> gpg 2.1 makes it harder to avoid confusing-to-the-user pinentry popups
> without end-users having to tweak their GnuPG configuration (there
> might be some way I've missed, but Googling hasn't helped).

Googling might not be the best way to find answers to these problems.
If you're struggling with them, please ask here on gnupg-devel, or open
tickets at so that the upstream GnuPG team
knows what problems your having and has a chance to fix them for you.

> It's certainly possible for GnuPG upstream changes to make it harder
> to use the wrapper approach (which is why I can't easily see a way to
> support 2.1 properly in all respects, much as I'd like to).

Can you explain this in more detail?  I'd really like to see
python-gnupg support 2.1 better.  I might be able to offer you some
patches, too :)


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 930 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20161018/5a7eb892/attachment.sig>

More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list