Ryo ONODERA <ryo_on%yk.rim.or.jp@localhost> writes: > From: Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost>, Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 07:42:46 -0400 > >> Ryo ONODERA <ryo_on%yk.rim.or.jp@localhost> 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 details.
Attachment:
pgprnrY5_t5lC.pgp
Description: PGP signature