[pkg-gnupg-maint] Bug#854797: pinentry: Add pinentry-emacs package

Daiki Ueno ueno at gnu.org
Sun Feb 12 09:16:23 UTC 2017


Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg at fifthhorseman.net> writes:

> I'm sorry, clearly i'm confused!  I thought that pinentry-emacs was
> "emacs-specific stuff entirely", and therefore it was addressed as well
> by the e-mail above.
>
> What do you think would be the ideal situation with pinentry-emacs,
> gnupg-agent, "the INSIDE_EMACS hack", and debian?

I would honor the upstream default, which is currently neglected in the
Debian package, for uncertain reasons.  If you have any concrete
concerns, I would suggest you to discuss it in upstream, like in this
bug:

>> By the way, we have been waiting for your response to the upstream bug
>> for a long time: https://bugs.gnupg.org/gnupg/issue2034
>
> I was unaware that anything was needed from me here.  re-reading it, i'm
> still not sure.  Can you help me understand what you need from me?for
> that bug report?

You expressed your uncertainity.  Neal provided the docuementation
trying to clarify the concerns (though it's not correct).  Then you
became completely silent.  I don't think it's a constructive behavior.

> you might think these are far-fetched questions, but i think i've run
> into the equivalent of all of these scenarios for the non-emacs
> pinentries.

I wouldn't answer to those questions here.  You should have brought up
those in upstream discussion.

> I've been reluctant to bring in the additional emacs complexity to the
> debian pinentry situation because i don't know that i can support it
> well if there are problems, and i want to focus my debian time on things
> that i think i can reasonably support.  But I would welcome help in
> providing this kind of support, if we think that having more direct
> pinentry + emacs integration in debian is the right thing to do.

Even if you compile it with --enable-inside-emacs, it wouldn't be
activated unless the user explicitly set "allow-emacs-pinentry" in
~/.gnupg/gpg-agent.conf.  Isn't it feasible to declare it as
"unsupported", until the implementation meets your criteria?

Regards,
-- 
Daiki Ueno



More information about the pkg-gnupg-maint mailing list