On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:46:55AM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> That's the exact same stack i used for my test, and i didn't see the
> error. so yeah, i'd like to try to track it down.
So I've tried again. I've good and bad news.
Good news: I can no longer reproduce the session startup fa
On https://bugs.debian.org/833596 :
On Wed 2016-08-10 04:27:21 -0400, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:12:27AM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> So i'm not able to reproduce this behavior.
>>
>> Zack, can you help me narrow down how this is happening for you?
>
> Sure, I'
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:12:27AM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> So i'm not able to reproduce this behavior.
>
> Zack, can you help me narrow down how this is happening for you?
Sure, I'll be happy to. But as I mentioned before I wonder if it's worth
to do it with my current package mix: I'
Control: tags 833596 + moreinfo unreproducible
Hi Zack--
On Sat 2016-08-06 13:58:18 -0400, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> > On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 12:41:18PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> >> On desktop systems (where i'd expect the majority of secret key access
>> >> happens), for folks who
Package: gnupg
Version: 2.1.14-3
Forwarding from debian-devel
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/08/msg00093.html , as
requested by dkg.
- Forwarded message from Stefano Zacchiroli -
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2016 12:32:39 +0200
From: Stefano Zacchiroli
To: debian-de...@lists.debian.org
5 matches
Mail list logo
