On 04/16/2018 02:14 PM, Werner Koch wrote:
>> Could gnupg 2.2.7 detect if gpgme is installed at all and if it is,
>> make sure it's at least version 1.10.1 / 1.11.0?
> :-) - No.
Speaking for Gentoo we can do this on distribution level by adding a
blocker on the lower version if needed.
--
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 11:44, thomas.jaro...@intra2net.com said:
> I'm wondering how to prevent other people from running into this issue.
I wondered whether I should send out a notice to the announce list but I
doubt that those with problems will read it. I will add a pointer to
the NEWS entry at
Hello Werner,
On Friday, 13 April 2018 12:16:22 CEST Werner Koch wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:26, w...@gnupg.org said:
> > Please stay tuned for a GPGME fix. I hope that you can test it too.
>
> I pushed a fix as weel as a new test to the master branch. I may also
> release a 1.10.1 to fix
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:26, w...@gnupg.org said:
> Please stay tuned for a GPGME fix. I hope that you can test it too.
I pushed a fix as weel as a new test to the master branch. I may also
release a 1.10.1 to fix this. The attached pacth should apply to 1.10.0
and maybe also to 1.9.
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:56, thomas.jaro...@intra2net.com said:
> t-verify.c:239: GnuPG: General error
> FAIL: t-verify
That turns out to be more complicated than on first sight. This error
is from checking that BAD signature - in this case gpg emits a BADSIG
status line and calls exit with
On Thursday, 12 April 2018 12:56:30 CEST Thomas Jarosch wrote:
> Hi Werner,
>
> On Thursday, 12 April 2018 11:53:33 CEST Werner Koch wrote:
> > I think I will fix it in GnuPG. Attached is an already pushed fix.
>
> with that fix applied on top of gnupg 2.2.6 vanilla,
> one gpgme 1.10.0 unit
Hi Werner,
On Thursday, 12 April 2018 11:53:33 CEST Werner Koch wrote:
> I think I will fix it in GnuPG. Attached is an already pushed fix.
with that fix applied on top of gnupg 2.2.6 vanilla,
one gpgme 1.10.0 unit test fails:
t-verify.c:239: GnuPG: General error
FAIL: t-verify
Sorry for
Hi,
I think I will fix it in GnuPG. Attached is an already pushed fix.
Salam-Shalom,
Werner
--
# Please read: Daniel Ellsberg - The Doomsday Machine #
Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
From e2bd152a928d79ddfb95fd2f7911c80a1a8d5a21 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 10:17, thomas.jaro...@intra2net.com said:
> -> to me it seems gnupg 2.2.6 exits with failure
> once it encounters an unknown public key.
>
> Is this behavior to be expected or considered a regression?
Good question. I implemented the
> "gpg: Emit FAILURE status lines in
On Wednesday, 11 April 2018 10:03:42 CEST Thomas Jarosch wrote:
> Error output from gpgme_op_verify():
>
> gpgme_op_verify error: General error
thanks to Werner's hint with GPGME_DEBUG in another gpgme related thread,
I was able to generate a short log file for gnupg 2.2.5 and gnupg 2.2.6.
Hello together,
after updating from gnupg 2.2.5 to 2.2.6, I'm facing a possible regression.
We use the gpgme 1.8.0 library to verify the integrity of our update packages.
Two valid signatures need to be present on the checked file.
One unit test checks a file that is signed by two
known keys +
11 matches
Mail list logo
