wk at gnupg.org
Wed Nov 22 10:00:46 CET 2017
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:25, dgouttegattat at incenp.org said:
> If we are about to make a new pinentry release, it would be nice to
> have a decision about the recently proposed pinentry-tqt (a pinentry
I am fine with this as long as it is not enabled by default.
> it is up to me to accept a new pinentry, and therefore I do not want
> to merge it without explicit approval from other pinentry developers.
Yesterday I did some work on Pinentry to see how much effort it will be
to build a FLTK Pinentry for Windows.
I reached a point where I can cross-build it using static FLTK libs; it
does not yet work on my (aehmm) Vista box - needs some debugging.
Building the FLTK libs is pretty slow and FLTK needs to be stripped down
to what we actually need. Thus I doubt that we will see an FLTK
Pinentry in the plain Windows installer in the next weeks.
I am all in favor of doing a pinentry release very soon. GPGME will be
the next candidate. I am still looking for a Python hacker to take
responsibility for the GPGME's Python bindings (including working on a
Windows port of them).
Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Gnupg-devel