Your valuable insights on this topic are greatly appreciated, Ville. :)
Doug
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
I’d actually like to know why the pinentry / pinentry-curses that come from
homebrew don’t seem to work at all. I am now using pinentry-mac but I wouldn’t
mind getting the normal pinentry working. All I get is "Agent admitted failure
to sign using the key.” without any PIN queries. I can see the
Maybe a little off topic, but then again we are talking about keeping gnupg up
to date.
TL;DR: I think either MacPorts or Homebrew can be used and one or the other is
quite necessary. I do most of my work on the command line / Vim, etc. and using
either is just as convenient as apt-get / yum et
On 19/08/14 22:27, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> I think that you should only build or fork software[1] when you're willing to
> provide the service of security fixes to your users, or clearly indicate this
> is
> out of your scope. Do they provide security support?
I'm starting to regret my from-the-si
Ville,
Thank you for your detailed response, it was very helpful. :)
I'm curious about one thing, and sorry if this is off-topic but since
we're discussing how to keep GnuPG up to date on Mac perhaps it is close
enough to on-topic.
I notice you suggested (home)brew as the source of the gpg2
On 19/08/14 21:52, Ludwig Hügelschäfer wrote:
> Ack. They use the build system from homebrew. They update recipes from
> time to time, but their releases normally go only with major Mac OS X
> updates (e.g. 10.8 -> 10.9), as in last october with 2.0.22. Their
> main target is the gpg-plugin for App
Am Di 19.08.2014, 14:49:37 schrieb Robert J. Hansen:
> > 2. They have a default skeleton gpg.conf with incompatible digest
> > algo etc. (as discussed many times on the list).
>
> Use of cert-digest-algo isn't really a problem unless you're needing
> people running old PGP or GnuPG to be able to v
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 20:41, do...@dougbarton.us said:
> I got to their site from the link on
> https://www.gnupg.org/download/index.html so I had assumed it was
> Ok. :-/
Me too. I do not have access to a Mac, thus I am not able to test the
stuff myself. After they fixed some license related th
I just went through the process of switching to brew provided gpg2. Anyone not
interested in the particular Mac workflow can skip this one.
So, removing GPG Suite, installed gnupg2 via brew, re-installing GPG Suite
without MacGPG2 (i.e. the Mail.app helpers etc.). There is a bit of work
involve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 19.08.14 20:17, Ville Määttä wrote:
> Yeah. Ok. Assuming the Mac guys / fork referred to here are
> GPGTools / MacGPG2 I can see a couple bigger issues there than just
> patching in support for bigger keys.
Ack. Nevertheless, I don't like some of
On 8/19/14 11:17 AM, Ville Määttä wrote:
1. The package and gnupg2 version used has not been updated since October 2013
(2013.10.22). If I’m not completely mistaken the version is still 2.0.22.
Yes, that was my biggest concern as well (and you're correct on the
version).
Is there a better s
On 8/19/14 4:01 AM, Werner Koch wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:14, nicholas.c...@gmail.com said:
They've made a fork? I hadn't realised that. Why on earth?
I don't know. However they use a set of patches (e.g. allowing 8k keys)
and thus the Mac version diverts from the gnupg.org version. Act
Yeah. Ok. Assuming the Mac guys / fork referred to here are GPGTools / MacGPG2
I can see a couple bigger issues there than just patching in support for bigger
keys.
1. The package and gnupg2 version used has not been updated since October 2013
(2013.10.22). If I’m not completely mistaken the ve
2. They have a default skeleton gpg.conf with incompatible digest
algo etc. (as discussed many times on the list).
Use of cert-digest-algo isn't really a problem unless you're needing
people running old PGP or GnuPG to be able to verify your signatures.
That's less of a problem than using digest
They've made a fork? I hadn't realised that. Why on earth?
They emphatically disagree with some of the key size limits.
To be blunt, it's made me lose a lot of faith in the developers. In the
grand scheme of things, it's hard to find *anything* less significant
than whether someone uses RSA-
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:14, nicholas.c...@gmail.com said:
> They've made a fork? I hadn't realised that. Why on earth?
I don't know. However they use a set of patches (e.g. allowing 8k keys)
and thus the Mac version diverts from the gnupg.org version. Actually
Gpg4win does the same but I take ca
Quite. Who are the "Mac guys" and what did they fork?
--
Ville
> On 19.8.2014, at 12.14, Nicholas Cole wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Richard Outerbridge
>> wrote:
>> Still waiting for my email address, yet my blackphone is already in
>> my hands. Keep up the good work.
>>
>>
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Richard Outerbridge wrote:
> Still waiting for my email address, yet my blackphone is already in
> my hands. Keep up the good work.
>
> I’m not going to bother with 2.1 until the Mac guyz come to their
> senses about not forking the crypto. Could be a long wait.
Still waiting for my email address, yet my blackphone is already in
my hands. Keep up the good work.
I’m not going to bother with 2.1 until the Mac guyz come to their
senses about not forking the crypto. Could be a long wait.
On 2014-08-14 (226), at 11:57:06, Werner Koch wrote:
__outer
> Hell
19 matches
Mail list logo
