Re: More strangeness.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 14.01.15 09:57, Werner Koch wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 21:33, dgouttegat...@incenp.org said: > >> [2] https://bugs.g10code.com/gnupg/issue1794 > > Right, this is a blocker for a 2.1.2 release. I have another strange appearance: 1. Generate a key under 2.1.1 (new keybox storage enabled). pub rsa2048/2D561BB4 created: 2015-01-18 expires: 2015-02-15 usage: SC trust: ultimate validity: ultimate sub rsa2048/1675A825 created: 2015-01-18 expires: 2015-02-15 usage: E [ultimate] (1). Ludwig Hügelschäfer (Test Validity 2.1.1) 2. Sign this key with an older key (in this case my regular key 0959D2E3). Save changes. Quit. Enter into edit-key again, key is displayed as follows: pub rsa2048/2D561BB4 created: 2015-01-18 expires: 2015-02-15 usage: SC trust: ultimate validity: full sub rsa2048/1675A825 created: 2015-01-18 expires: 2015-02-15 usage: E [ full ] (1). Ludwig Hügelschäfer (Test Validity 2.1.1) Is this another manifestation of the mentioned bug or a different one? Ludwig -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJUu7EuAAoJEA52XAUJWdLj08oIAJguUUMOQwCww4n/n9knlhQ/ S8U6snmeL7iV9+rtiDcD3OxZQ+WyU4Fu3LIkIVl+PXEM59IoKnKM/iasTjFMZzAv 3Jvv0SIR7+bkwbhDtiKE311kPD8HR3YtlHr0mp32hTm9o9nX8Hl7Y+jvU+6wxcbB ZSz8lX78ANQ0BinSQA86gAwtP5z3mawLBRNDSPBIst/Caao9ZNBmRqOxUc6YEtk7 R/4987hAPD+FZG6C2nCda+z0tsIMJdbK3LouQOyOspbzO8CVAYn24M33WowV6AOt IrvhLvbsRRp118yULrhby8Y83+MxaUgSg3x5QM0oBCySdVRVq7cUv+CzH6os050= =pucW -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: More strangeness.
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 21:33, dgouttegat...@incenp.org said: > [2] https://bugs.g10code.com/gnupg/issue1794 Right, this is a blocker for a 2.1.2 release. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: More strangeness.
On 01/13/2015 05:29 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: ... Now, maybe I'm missing something completely obvious here (and if so, it wouldn't be the first time), but if I have the secret part of a certificate, and that certificate is marked as ultimately trusted, isn't it a bit odd that the user IDs would possess undefined validity? It could be the same problem as the one reported last month by Ximin Luo [1,2]. That problem only occurs when the public keys are stored in the new keybox format, which would be your case if you were “starting from an empty GnuPG 2.1.1 installation”. Until the bug is fixed, a possible workaround is to force GnuPG 2.1 to use the legacy pubring format, e.g. by creating an empty pubring.gpg file in GnuPG’s home directory, prior to importing any key. [1] http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2014-December/029197.html [2] https://bugs.g10code.com/gnupg/issue1794 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
