> Looks like gpg now is happy to deal with Unicode?
Nope, that error message in the dead code was misleading, no option name was involved so I don't really know what it was referring too (yet another missing test ;).
I don't know enough about that code area to say whether or not unicode support is good or not. But this merge proposal is not related to unicode support either.
> Looks like gpg now is happy to deal with Unicode?
Nope, that error message in the dead code was misleading, no option name was involved so I don't really know what it was referring too (yet another missing test ;).
I don't know enough about that code area to say whether or not unicode support is good or not. But this merge proposal is not related to unicode support either.