Re: OpenPGP certificate/key management thoughts about function re-organization and cleanup

[Simon Josefsson]

Werner Koch <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:53, address@hidden said:
>
>> This is quite unavoidable. I wanted to have a consistent API for X.509
>> and Openpgp keys. If this changes consistency is pretty much gone!
>
> It is probably too late now but you might want to look at the gpgme
> interface for keys.  It is now in active use for 5 years.  For example,
> retrieving all fingerprints of a key is a mere list walking.
>
> By having the gnutls API similar to the one of gpgme it will make the
> life of developers much easier.  You could just take the structure
> definitions out of gpgme and use the same definition under a different
> name in gnutls.

Making it simple for gpgme applications to use gnutls' openpgp stuff
would be very cool.  Some alignment of the APIs here may be possible.
Is GPGME under the LGPL so it can be used by libgnutls?

Alas, I don't have time to work on it any time soon. :(

/Simon