Patch submitted. I hope it gets accepted... :-/ https://bugs.g10code.com/gnupg/issue1573
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Ido Rosen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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... >
