Re: GnuPG

[Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1796 bytes --]

Hello,

As far as I know we do not use any exotic functionality.

The main (and maybe even only) user is pakfire, if that works we are fine. If that breaks, we are a bit screwed :)

-Michael

> On 27 Mar 2021, at 21:39, Adolf Belka <adolf.belka(a)ipfire.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
> On 27/03/2021 21:11, Peter Müller 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 requirement for the older insecure keys.
>> (Assuming this was a question:) To my knowledge, we do not have key material in operation that would not
>> be supported by GnuPG 2.x - the "classic" branch simply is more lightweight than the 2.x branch.
>> The last time I looked at this, GnuPG 2.x required some flavour of the "pinentry" helper for entering
>> passphrases, and won't compile without. Since there is no manual interaction 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 working 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 stuff, my capabilities aren't sufficient but I can generally help with providing update patches on anything that I find has newer versions.
> 
> Regards,
> Adolf
> 
>> Thanks, and best regards,
>> Peter Müller