Release gpgme-1.10.0?

[Werner Koch]

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).


Shalom-Salam,

   Werner

-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/attachments/20171122/7c543ccc/attachment.sig>