On 12/04/2019 01:32, Ángel wrote:
> The alias will only be expanded on an interactive shell
Thanks for this piece of information! I'm rather cautious when it comes
to these shell modes of operation. I think I'm understanding it
reasonably well now, but have been surprised about behaviour in the
On 2019-04-11 at 10:24 +0200, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> Depending on how the utility calls "gpg", it might be affected by your
> alias and end up calling "gpg2".
Nope. ☺
Kindly note that it is being added as a shell alias.
The alias will only be expanded on an interactive shell¹ This causes
that
On 11/04/2019 02:37, Ángel wrote:
> Why should I need to remember to manually add that .'2' every time?
Because, as I said, it might silently corrupt the functioning of a
utility that expects "gpg" to be 1.4 and not 2.1. There are quite a lot
of utilities out there that parse the output of the
On 2019-04-06 at 21:30 +0200, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> This was all quite an ordeal for Debian to get right, there are a lot of
> subtleties to deal with. I really think your best bet is to get that "2"
> suffix in your muscle memory for when you use the command line.
Why should I need to remember
Hello André
> I'm using (up to date) Trisquel.
>
That is a Ubuntu-Flavor based on Ubuntu Xenial (16.04 LTS).
This Version needs GnuPG 1.x for the signing/validating of the
Repository-Keys. So you can't uninstall GnuPG 1.x
regards
Juergen
--
Juergen M. Bruckner
juer...@bruckner.tk
smime.p7s
Hi Juergen,
Op 07-04-19 om 20:03 schreef Juergen Bruckner:
> which Operating System do you use?
I'm using (up to date) Trisquel.
Best regards,
André Ockers
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Hi André,
which Operating System do you use?
regards
Juergen
Am 06.04.19 um 21:21 schrieb André Ockers:
> Hi Peter and list,
>
>
> Op 06-04-19 om 21:02 schreef Peter Lebbing:
>> The error message is really unclear, but the problem probably is that
>> you should have used "gpg2" instead of
Hi André,
On 06/04/2019 21:21, André Ockers wrote:
> which would probably be a bad idea, wouldn't it?
Quite! :-)
Your operating system probably still requires GnuPG 1.4, so you can't
remove it. But you can solemnly pledge not to use it... I wouldn't mess
with the "gpg" binary, though. Don't use
Hi Peter and list,
Op 06-04-19 om 21:02 schreef Peter Lebbing:
> The error message is really unclear, but the problem probably is that
> you should have used "gpg2" instead of "gpg", consistently. So just
> leave "gpg" behind and only use "gpg2" ever. Well, until an updated
> Trisquel drops the
On 06/04/2019 18:50, Jean-David Beyer via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Mine's bigger than yours (older, too):
>
> $ gpg --version
> gpg (GnuPG) 2.0.14
Yeah, and it's probably high time to put gramps out to pasture as
well... ;-) That's a seriously old, unsupported version.
Peter.
--
I use the GNU
On 06/04/2019 20:24, André Ockers wrote:
>>> gpg: secret key "7CD3FBC8F6005ED5" not found: eof
> I'm using (up to date) Trisquel
>
> $ gpg --version
> gpg (GnuPG) 1.4.20
>
> $ gpg2 --version
> gpg (GnuPG) 2.1.11
> libgcrypt 1.6.5
The error message is really unclear, but the problem probably is
Hi mr. Reichelt and list,
Op 06-04-19 om 18:32 schreef Markus Reichelt:
> * André Ockers wrote:
>
>> Op 06-04-19 om 15:04 schreef Markus Reichelt:
>>> gpg -a --output an...@ockers.eu.asc.revoke --gen-revoke 7CD3FBC8F6005ED5
>> This leads to the following:
>>
>> gpg: secret key
On 4/6/19 12:32 PM, Markus Reichelt wrote:
> i'm using on slackware64-current (if you are using windows, all hands
> are off)
>
> gpg --version
> gpg (GnuPG) 2.2.15
> libgcrypt 1.8.4
Mine's bigger than yours (older, too):
$ gpg --version
gpg (GnuPG) 2.0.14
libgcrypt 1.4.5
Copyright (C) 2009
* André Ockers wrote:
> Op 06-04-19 om 15:04 schreef Markus Reichelt:
> > gpg -a --output an...@ockers.eu.asc.revoke --gen-revoke 7CD3FBC8F6005ED5
>
> This leads to the following:
>
> gpg: secret key "7CD3FBC8F6005ED5" not found: eof
i'm using on slackware64-current (if you are using windows,
Dear mr. Reichelt,
Thank you for your answer.
Op 06-04-19 om 15:04 schreef Markus Reichelt:
> gpg -a --output an...@ockers.eu.asc.revoke --gen-revoke 7CD3FBC8F6005ED5
This leads to the following:
gpg: secret key "7CD3FBC8F6005ED5" not found: eof
Best regards,
André Ockers
signature.asc
* André Ockers wrote:
> But when I tried to do the some thing in Bash I ran into the following:
>
> $ gpg -a --output an...@ockers.eu.asc.revoke --gen-revoke an...@ockers.eu
>
> sec 4096R/F5FE3668 2014-07-31 André Ockers
>
> Which is the fingerprint of the old key.
>
> What happened and
Dear all,
After I've created a new key and uploaded it to a key server, I ran into
something when generating a revocation certificate.
In Seahorse, I could select the right (new) key and make a revocation
certificate from there.
But when I tried to do the some thing in Bash I ran into the
17 matches
Mail list logo
