On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 11:08:10AM -0600, David Starner wrote: > On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 05:32:13PM +0100, Edward Betts wrote: > > Did this message mess with GnuPG on any one else's system? > I had to kill gpg (1.0.1-2) to get mutt to continue, and then > I got > [-- PGP output follows --] > ... > Good signature from ... > ... > gpg: waiting for lock (hold by 829 - probably dead) ... > gpg: waiting for lock (hold by 829 - probably dead) ... > gpg: waiting for lock (hold by 829 - probably dead) ... > gpg: waiting for lock (hold by 829 - probably dead) ... > gpg: waiting for lock (hold by 829 - probably dead) ... > gpg: waiting for lock (hold by 829 - probably dead) ... > [-- End of PGP output --] > > GnuPG bug or local configuration problem?
Okay, sorry. I looked in the bug list, but didn't get down to the wishlist bugs. (FYI: it's caused by GnuPG being killed and leaving a lock file in ~/.gnupg. Do rm ~/.gnupg/*.lock to fix it. Considering that gpg can check that there is no process 829 as well as I can, why doesn't it deal with it?) -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Only a nerd would worry about wrong parentheses with square brackets. But that's what mathematicians are. -- Dr. Burchard, math professor at OSU
