Re: Will gpg 1.x remain supported for the foreseeable future?

On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote: > I think that's https://dev.gnupg.org/T2290 Thanks. Say, anyone know how to get bug tracker problems resolved? Somehow my email address there lacks a dot before .com, so I can't get confirmation emails. - Dan

Re: Will gpg 1.x remain supported for the foreseeable future?

Dan Kegel wrote: > - might save time and anguish if apt-key (and thus gpg[v]?) accepted > armored keyrings even if filename ends in .gpg I think that's https://dev.gnupg.org/T2290, in case you want to follow it or submit a patch to implement it. Werner did provide some details about how it would

Re: Will gpg 1.x remain supported for the foreseeable future?

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 7:58 PM, Dan Kegel wrote: >> The keys referred to via signed-by are the only acceptable keys for the >> associated apt repo. >> >> does that make sense? > > That'd be great if it worked. Since it's hard to explain what's broken > without a simple script

Re: Will gpg 1.x remain supported for the foreseeable future?

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 7:52 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > if this is the only thing happening, apt will indeed fail, because it > has never heard of the "new key" that was just created -- why should it > accept signatures from that new key? > > how are you configuring

Re: Will gpg 1.x remain supported for the foreseeable future?

On Wed 2018-01-17 20:58:21 -0800, Dan Kegel wrote: > Does one even need --import and --export while building foobar-archive; > aren't the thing being imported and the thing being exported > the same format? i don't know -- what are you importing? if the thing you're importing is already a clean

Re: Will gpg 1.x remain supported for the foreseeable future?

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 8:58 PM, Dan Kegel wrote: > Here's the bit where it explodes, > > + sudo GNUPGHOME=/tmp/obs_localbuild_gpghome_dank.tmp > APT_CONFIG=/home/dank/src/obs/foo.tmp/etc/apt.conf apt-get -q -q > update > inside VerifyGetSigners > Preparing to exec:

Re: Will gpg 1.x remain supported for the foreseeable future?

On Wed 2018-01-17 15:09:45 -0800, Dan Kegel wrote: > Yes to all four questions. Here's the user story. cool, your user story all makes sense to me except this bit: > - The package depends on debian-archive-keyring (to leverage > the web of trust as suggested in 'man secure-apt') (itym 'man

Re: Will gpg 1.x remain supported for the foreseeable future?

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > On Tue 2018-01-16 20:10:38 -0800, Dan Kegel wrote: > > When I try to use gpg to manipulate secure apt repositories in the > > real world, my head explodes. > > hi there! what kind of manipulation are you doing

Re: Will gpg 1.x remain supported for the foreseeable future?

On Tue 2018-01-16 20:10:38 -0800, Dan Kegel wrote: > When I try to use gpg to manipulate secure apt repositories in the > real world, my head explodes. hi there! what kind of manipulation are you doing of secure apt repositories with gpg? are you talking about signing the repo as an author? or

Re: Will gpg 1.x remain supported for the foreseeable future?

On Tue 2018-01-16 16:26:49 -0800, Dan Kegel wrote: > I worked hard to jump through hoops to use version 2 in such > an environment, but then I ran into the fact that even the latest apt > from debian does not support version 2's keybox format, so I had > to drop back to gpg version 1 anyway. apt

Re: Will gpg 1.x remain supported for the foreseeable future?

On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 01:26, d...@kegel.com said: > I'm starting to suspect that using version 2.x of gnupg is simply not > a good idea when writing shell scripts that have to run unattended > and not touch system keychains or agents. Actually 2.2 is much easier to script than 2.1. Watch out for

Re: Will gpg 1.x remain supported for the foreseeable future?

On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 03:52, r...@sixdemonbag.org said: > The game plan has always been to retire 1.4 as soon as practical. Do > not rely on it existing in the future. Kind of: 1.4 will be kept alive for use with PGP 2 encrypted and signated data and maybe for old platforms. However, modern

Re: Will gpg 1.x remain supported for the foreseeable future?

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 7:37 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > * it's not going away in the near future > * we know people like to use it for servers > * it's a lot of work to keep two codebases going > * new crypto, like ECC, will not be backported to 1.4 > * new features will

Re: Will gpg 1.x remain supported for the foreseeable future?

Robert J. Hansen wrote: > > Is version 1 going to remain available, I hope? Version 2 simply > > seems a poor fit for scripting. > > The game plan has always been to retire 1.4 as soon as practical. Do > not rely on it existing in the future. that's a shame. i hope someone creates a non-gui,

Re: Will gpg 1.x remain supported for the foreseeable future?

> Is version 1 going to remain available, I hope? Version 2 simply > seems a poor fit for scripting. The game plan has always been to retire 1.4 as soon as practical. Do not rely on it existing in the future. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list

Will gpg 1.x remain supported for the foreseeable future?

Hey all, I'm starting to suspect that using version 2.x of gnupg is simply not a good idea when writing shell scripts that have to run unattended and not touch system keychains or agents. I worked hard to jump through hoops to use version 2 in such an environment, but then I ran into the fact