>>>>> In <87slp587cw.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> 
>>>>>	Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com> wrote:
> Daiki Ueno <ueno@unixuser.org> writes:

> >>>>>> In <87irq1evdk.fsf@catnip.gol.com> 
> >>>>>>	Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> wrote:
> >> Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com> writes:
> >> > What do you think?  It might be ugly to depend on the 'gpg: writing'
> >> > output instead of the [GNUPG:] stuff, but I see no option here.
> >
> >> Of course if such a kludge is used, an important thing is to report the
> >> problem with the "official" interface as a bug...
> >
> > Yes.  I think the root of the problem is that gpg does not emit any
> > trigger of signature creation.  I'll propose a patch to GnuPG so as to
> > introduce BEGIN_SIGNING and END_SIGNING status.

> That sounds like a good idea.

BEGIN_SIGNING is now available in GnuPG 1.4.3.  Should we install the
attached patch right now or wait for the new GnuPG packages available in
most distributions?