Thoughts on GnuPG and automation

Peter Lebbing peter at
Wed Mar 4 11:10:52 CET 2015

On 04/03/15 00:55, Hans of Guardian wrote:
> [...] what I'm trying to say is that for programming environments
> where GPGME does not make sense, there should be the ability to
> easily make a native version of what GPGME is doing.

Couldn't this be achieved by writing a C program that, for instance,
talks via JSON to you, and itself uses GPGME to call the gpg binary?

<Your easily written native library>
<Program written in C>
<gpg binary>

I think there is opposition to adding more stuff to the gpg binary. I
don't think there is opposition to you writing a program that uses GPGME
:). If it's good, it might be picked up for wider inclusion.

Since your Java/Python/etc program needs to install gpg anyway, it could
install the other C program as well. Packaging and distribution
definitely isn't a solved problem, but a separate one from what we are
now discussing, so let's not muddle this discussion by including it just


PS: When I say "you could write" I mean "someone could write"

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