On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Jerome Leclanche <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Ido Rosen <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Jerome Leclanche <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> What's the outcome on this? I'm interested in large keys in default > gnupg. > >> > >> That said, is there a reason why the patch isnt upstream yet? > >> J. Leclanche > >> > >> > > It was rejected upstream previously a few times. > > > > If we want it, it has to be a patch on upstream in our gpg version. I > > believe the reasoning that allowing larger key sizes are a performance > > issue for mobile does not really apply here. > > That sounds like the kind of perfect use case for a compile-time option. > > J. Leclanche > > If you mean an upstream compile-time option (i.e. not in the PKGBUILD), I agree wholeheartedly. Now all we have to do is convince Werner Koch, which means emailing gnupg-users/gnupg-devel, or submitting a bug report with a patch (and a copyright assignment). Closed bugs related to this are: https://bugs.g10code.com/gnupg/issue1441 https://bugs.g10code.com/gnupg/issue1460 FWIW, the pattern in upstream seems to be that anyone who suggests a larger max key size gets told no for a few years, and then it happens anyway. That is, if you can call 2 data points (2048, then 4096) a pattern...
