Hi Daiki-- On Sun 2017-02-12 04:16:23 -0500, Daiki Ueno wrote: > 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.
I tried to raise these questions upstream, as you say, in issue 2034,
and from what i can see on that ticket, there remains some disagreement
within the upstream (i.e. between you and neal) about whether the
documentation is correct.
I apologize for not being as constructive as i should have been when
following up on this. Thanks for your continued persistence.
> I wouldn't answer to those questions here. You should have brought up
> those in upstream discussion.
I'm bringing them up over on issue2034 now, i hope you'll consider
answering them over there.
> 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?
Yes, i'm much more likely to enable it in the pinentry build if i know
that it won't have any effect on users who don't explicitly enable it at
runtime.
--dkg
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
