Hi Peter, thank for your attention to this smallest problem of mine which I wouldn't even hope to have your attention for to begin with)
my bad, I should have started a new thread, well noted on the other hand that's probably why I suddenly had all the big gnupg minds helping me) what a rewarding side effect of unwittingly breaking the housekeeping rules) seriously now ... it was a fresh ubuntu 16.04 install it came with gnupg 1.4.20 and 2.1.11 i compiled gnupg 2.2.4 it worked just fine in terminal and after configuring Enigmail with the new gpg location works there as well do you think i still have a problem? thank you Dmitry On 22.02.2018 23:17, Peter Lebbing wrote: > On 22/02/18 18:10, Dmitry Gudkov wrote: >> problem solved by configuring Enigmail to use the new gnupg location in >> /usr/local/bin/gpg (in the "Preferences" dialog, "Basic" tab, override >> the default setting /usr/bin/gpg2) > While my mind was idly mulling this over, I suddenly wondered if what > you are doing is even supposed to work at all. I think perhaps you just > haven't discovered the dire consequences of it yet. > > GnuPG 1.4 and 2.0 are co-installable, and will happily work installed on > the same system. > > GnuPG 1.4 and 2.1+ are in the basis co-installable, but still can > present you with issues like keyrings going out of sync or requiring > careful crafting of configuration files, off the top of my head. > > But 2.0 and 2.1+ are definitely not co-installable. You can't have them > both on the same system. Right now you put GnuPG 2.2 and its > dependencies in /usr/local, but GnuPG 2.0 and its dependencies are still > in /usr. Their dependencies might start to mingle. > > The only way in which this might work is if I misinterpreted "not > co-installable", and 2.0 in /usr and 2.1+ in /usr/local is not actually > an instance of "co-installation". But I don't think that's the case. It > might also work by pure chance and break horribly on the next update. > > A solution, where GnuPG 2.1+ is statically linked against its > dependencies, was discussed here: > <https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2018-February/059969.html> > > Werner introduced the partial static linking in the just released 2.2.5. > > > Oh, and by the way, a little housekeeping information... You started > your thread on the mailing list by replying to a completely unrelated > thread (wotmate: simple grapher for your keyring). Could you please > start a new thread the next time? Just address a message to > <gnupg-users@gnupg.org> instead of replying to an existing message. > Those of us with a threading view of the mailing list now see it as > somehow being a part of the "wotmate: simple grapher for your keyring" > thread, but they bare no relation whatsoever. > > HTH, > > Peter. >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users