On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 18:58, d...@fifthhorseman.net said: > agreed, that's why i'm encouraging upstream to fix their inotify > detection: > > https://bugs.gnupg.org/gnupg/issue2756
I'll look at this next week. I guess the problem is that we watch the directory for inotify events of the socket file (because socket files don't work with inotify) but if the directory is gone we won't receive the notification. The fix would be easy but that might reflect on the Unix ability to keep working with file descriptors of unlinked file. I don't think this will be a problem , though. >> Then perhaps it should take a lock. I assume there must be some kind >> of locking anyway, or concurrent startups would occasionally fail. > > I'll let Werner (who i hope is reading this) answer whether locking is > actually happening and what these tradeoffs might be. I'd be pretty Yes, there are lock files during the starting of the agent and other daemons. > instructions that say "if you're dealing with gpg secret key material in > a test suite, here's what we recommend you do". Which could be as simple as: Do what GnuPG does in its test suite. Salam-Shalom, Werner p.s. ian: we are still waiting for the torified ADNS. -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
pgpXp2Qt25On8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
