gpgme-json chromium/firefox packaging

Maximilian Krambach maximilian.krambach at
Wed Jul 10 10:12:37 CEST 2019

I have been tasked to prepare "debian packages" for the gpgme-json browser 
integration, to ease installation of native messaging between gnupg and browser 

I'm working on a patch for, as I think this is 
probably the best place for it.

Basically, the two packages (chromium-gpgme and firefox-gpgme) just need to 
ensure that the gpgme-json binary ships, and that a configuration file is 
present at paths the browsers like.

My question:
Is it okay and maintainable to add "approved" extension ids (in this case, 
mailvelope) to these configuration files?

In the end, it is an authorization between the extension(s) and the browser 
(based on ids assigned by the browser publisher).
gpgme-json itself does not care who communicates with them (as long as it stays 
the same actor). Still, I have the feelings that some link between worlds is 
created that may not be desired.

Maximilian Krambach |
Intevation GmbH, Neuer Graben 17, 49074 Osnabrück | AG Osnabrück, HR B 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: 659 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <>

More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list