From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adolf Belka To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: GnuPG Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 22:51:59 +0200 Message-ID: <1848d958-f436-30a1-eb43-6d26af940c14@ipfire.org> In-Reply-To: <53CB769D-B282-4FBE-954E-99DF4275156D@ipfire.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7358101038894512101==" List-Id: --===============7358101038894512101== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Michael, On 29/03/2021 22:22, Michael Tremer wrote: > Hello, >=20 > As far as I know we do not use any exotic functionality. >=20 > The main (and maybe even only) user is pakfire, if that works we are fine. = If that breaks, we are a bit screwed :) Understand. At the worst we just stay where we are on the 1.4 classic branch. Based on the input from Peter I did some searching and may have found some co= mmand line options related to the pinentry aspect that disable it. I will try to build and if successful, I will install the built iso and see h= ow pakfire works for addon installs. If it works okay then I will provide a p= atch for wider review and testing. If it doesn't then I will leave things as = they are for now. Thanks and regards, Adolf. >=20 > -Michael >=20 >> On 27 Mar 2021, at 21:39, Adolf Belka wrote: >> >> Hi Peter, >> >> On 27/03/2021 21:11, Peter M=C3=BCller wrote: >>> Hello Adolf, >>> hello development folks, >>> sorry for my tardy reply. >> No problems. I know you have been and are very busy people. >>>> Is IPFire using the 1.4 Branch because there is some historic requiremen= t for the older insecure keys. >>> (Assuming this was a question:) To my knowledge, we do not have key mater= ial in operation that would not >>> be supported by GnuPG 2.x - the "classic" branch simply is more lightweig= ht than the 2.x branch. >>> The last time I looked at this, GnuPG 2.x required some flavour of the "p= inentry" helper for entering >>> passphrases, and won't compile without. Since there is no manual interact= ion on a firewall, "pinentry" >>> is useless, but I was unable to work out how to omit it in GnuPG 2.x . >> Thanks for the heads up on this. >>> Things could have been changed, meanwhile. Perhaps this is now possible, = so if you have some spare time >>> to look at this, go ahead. :-) >> I will give it a try. The worst that can happen is that I can't get it wor= king and we stay with the status quo which is working currently. >>> Thank you very much in advance for your efforts - and all your patches of= the last weeks. >> I am glad to help where I can.I know I can't help you with the real core s= tuff, my capabilities aren't sufficient but I can generally help with providi= ng update patches on anything that I find has newer versions. >> >> Regards, >> Adolf >> >>> Thanks, and best regards, >>> Peter M=C3=BCller >=20 --===============7358101038894512101==--