Hey Emacs, this is -*- outline -*- mode! * ABI's to break: ** The resulting error of an operation can not be retrieved seperately; the op_foobar operations can't be implemented by the user, they are not merely convenience, but necessity, while the op_foobar_start functions for these are unusable (or render the context unusable, your choice). ** string representation of non-secret keys and ATTR_IS_SECRET is NULL, which can not be differentiated from the case that it is not representable. * Implement posix-sema.c * Allow to use GTK's main loop instead of the select stuff in wait.c * add locking to the key cache? * GpgmeKey misses GPGME_ATTR_EXPIRE attribute * Add ATTR to return the number of subkeys or uids. * Factor out common code in _op_*_start functions. * Documentation ** Add note about GPGME clearing out pointer return values. ** validity/trust * Engines ** Move code common to all engines up from gpg to engine. ** engine operations can return General Error on unknown protocol (it's an internal error, as select_protocol checks already). * Operations ** Export status handler need much more work. ** Import should return a useful error when one happened. ** Genkey should return something more useful than General_Error. * Error Values ** Map ASSUAN/GpgSM ERR error values in a better way than is done now. ** Verify (and document) if Read_Error, Write_Error, Pipe_Error set errno. * Tests ** t-data *** Test gpgme_data_release_and_get_mem. *** Test gpgme_data_rewind for invalid types. *** Test gpgme_data_read's readable feature. * Build suite ** Make sure everything is cleaned correctly (esp. test area). ** There is a spurious 4/10 tests failed in some conditions. Rebuilding from scratch works around that. Bugs reported by Stephane Corthesy: > - When returning a GpgmeKey GPGME_ATTR_COMMENT attribute, characters > like ":" are not un-escaped, they are returned as \x3a > BTW, here's another bug: it it not possible to retrieve fingerprints > for subkeys > In GpgmeRecipients, would it be possible to provide a function which > would return the validity assigned to a name contained in the > GpgmeRecipients instance? > - There is an inconsistent behaviour: if we pass three times an > invalid (but non empty) passphrase, return code is GPGME_No_Data, but > if we pass three times an empty (and invalid) passphrase, we get > GPGME_No_Passphrase. > passphrase callback. If I use the same GpgmeContext as the one which > is currently asking for a passphrase, my app crashes: the r_hd in > the > callback has become invalid; if I use a brand new one, the callback > is called recursively, when I ask to enumerate keys.