Clarification and motivation
Implement a new backend, like the already existing one for Vault.Kv that uses either pass or gpgpass or gpg, they're essentially equivalent, but if we went for gpg we'd avoid a needless dep on pass, I'm not saying that we shouldn't maintain pass compatibilty, but we can go around it if we want.
Acceptance criteria
New functional backend on top of pass/gpp, associated tests, and compatibility with pass.
UPDATE: now having looked at the source code of pass, I refuse to touch GPG with a 20 foot pole, I personally don't mind the extra dependency so I'll just start wrapping pass.
Clarification and motivation
Implement a new backend, like the already existing one for Vault.Kv that uses either
passorgpgpassorgpg, they're essentially equivalent, but if we went for gpg we'd avoid a needless dep onpass, I'm not saying that we shouldn't maintainpasscompatibilty, but we can go around it if we want.Acceptance criteria
New functional backend on top of pass/gpp, associated tests, and compatibility with
pass.UPDATE: now having looked at the source code of pass, I refuse to touch GPG with a 20 foot pole, I personally don't mind the extra dependency so I'll just start wrapping pass.