From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter =?utf-8?q?M=C3=BCller?= To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: GnuPG Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2021 21:11:25 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6511233776354150543==" List-Id: --===============6511233776354150543== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Adolf, hello development folks, sorry for my tardy reply. > Is IPFire using the 1.4 Branch because there is some historic requirement f= or the older insecure keys.=20 (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 t= han the 2.x branch. The last time I looked at this, GnuPG 2.x required some flavour of the "pinen= try" 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 . Things could have been changed, meanwhile. Perhaps this is now possible, so i= f you have some spare time to look at this, go ahead. :-) Thank you very much in advance for your efforts - and all your patches of the= last weeks. Thanks, and best regards, Peter M=C3=BCller --===============6511233776354150543==--