On 20.02.15 11:29, Lukas Pitschl wrote: > It would be great if there’s an outline of the changes which might break > backwards compatibility (if any).
From usage point of view: https://gnupg.org/faq/whats-new-in-2.1.html >> The things that would require a little changing are the launchd >> templates that are used to start gpg-agent et al. I've been using my own >> templates already before and with 2.1 it's even simpler as per the >> changes to related gpg-agent. This sort of a script is not even >> necessary unless one needs SSH support which I do. I've attached my new >> template here. >> > > Since gpg-agent was changed to be started on demand we’ve not been using any > launchd scripts, as there no longer seems to be a need for them. > Well sure you do, with 2.0.* branch? At leasts the templates are being installed by the suite installer. The on-demand change is with 2.1. > since all the communication goes through our Libmacgpg framework. What is the need for Libmacgpg and its dependencies to MacGPG? I.e. why don't the tools just directly communicate with gpg-agent et al.? (Not including basic abstraction of functionality.) > One that was recently mentioned on our support platform is that pinentry > doesn’t store pass phrases if used with homebrew’s gnupg, it does however if > they’re using MacGPG2 Hmm, why would pinentry cache anything? I might be quite wrong but shouldn't gpg-agent be responsible for this? -- Ville
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
