Thoughts on GnuPG and automation

Peter Lebbing peter at
Tue Mar 3 16:43:12 CET 2015

On 03/03/15 14:29, Hans of Guardian wrote:
> It is actually more difficult to wrap GPGME in Java than to have just
> rewritten GPGME in Java.

In my opinion, if this is the case, then that is indeed the proper
solution: write a general-purpose library à la GPGME, but don't call gpg
directly from your application.

Calling the gpg binary is indeed an API, as was said here. It's the API
GPGME uses, for instance. GPGME does not somehow load gpg in its address
space or something; it simply invokes gpg, in a separate process.

That calling the gpg binary is an API doesn't make it the right API for
other programs to use. The right API in general would be GPGME or an
alternative to GPGME.

Just like libc is the proper API for a program to use instead of
directly issuing syscalls to the Linux kernel. The syscall interface is
an API; it's just not the right one in many cases.

At least, this is my view of it.


I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail.
You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy.
My key is available at <>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list