tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/security/gnupg2

Ryo ONODERA <> writes:

> From: Greg Troxel <>, Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 07:42:46 -0400
>> Ryo ONODERA <> writes:
>>> Is there any reason to depend on curses-based pinentry only?
>>> For example, in thunderbird enigmail case,
>>> pinentry-gtk2 works however curses-based pinentry does not work for me.
>>> MESSAGE or other documentation file should suggest pinentry* packages
>>> installation.
> I do not find official usage about MESSAGE file yet.

I don't understand what you mean by that.

My own opinion that MESSAGE is very much overused and should be avoided
is not official policy.

>> All that said, because thunderbird is a gtk thing, not a qt thing,
>> having the enigmail plugin depend on pinentry-gtk2 seems reasonable.
> O.k.
> I will keep pinentry dependency.
> And I will add pinentry-gtk2 dependency to *-enigmail.

sounds fine to me.

>> Sort of realted, are we at the point where the gnupg2 package should
>> build gpg, and gpg 1 should be deprecated?  I'm not clear on why we are
>> still using gpg1.
> I believe gpg2 will work fine for many users.

Some people seem bothered by it, but I haven't seen specifics, just a
general objection to some notion of complexity.    As I see it, the
pinentry thing is the big complexity, but it's also useful, and gpg1
uses pinentry, so I don't really see how gpg1/gpg2 are different.
Perhaps it's that with gpg1 on the command line, you can type the
passphrase manually, and you can't with gpg2, but I'm not clear on the

Attachment: pgprnrY5_t5lC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index