> Every environment is free to implement its own pinentry, and we've never > discouraged that (indeed, gnupg upstream ships several pinentry > variants). If a pinentry variant chooses to implement its own > passphrase cache, that is up to that pinentry variant, no?
I'm not objecting to the idea of GKD providing its own pinentry: creating a gkd-pinentry sounds like a good idea. I'm objecting to what I read (and possibly misread) as placing GKD hooks into the *GnuPG-distributed* pinentry. I would suggest that in the future we talk about "pinentry" only for GnuPG's pinentry, and "foo-pinentry" to denote a pinentry provided by foo, so as to prevent future misunderstandings. :)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
