Holger Levsen wrote (13 Feb 2014 11:50:38 GMT) : > hah. I wish I had known about the keyring file directive before... so, I have > imported them and refreshed them occasionally...
I've not looked at this problem in details (and am not likely to do so any time soon), but it seems to me that if you 1. removed these duplicate keys from your keyring; 2. used the "keyring" directive instead... then it would *maybe* make it easier for parcimonie to call gpg in a way that only uses your personal keyring, and disregards any additional ones (possibly by copying gpg.conf to a temporary file, removing any "keyring" directive from the copy, and passing --options $TEMPORARY_FILE to gpg). To me, it seems it would 0. fix an actual bug, as in the current implementation incrementally imports keys from keyrings specificied in gpg.conf into the personal one, when they're found on the configured keyserver, which seems totally wrong; 1. be a bit easier to implement than a --exclude-keyring option; 2. provide a nicer user experience, as this simply could be done by default, and no additional parcimonie option would be needed. What do you think? If you agree, then perhaps we could retitle this bug report to "parcimonie should ignore additional keyrings, instead of incrementally importing their keys into the personal one" or similar, and raise the priority to normal. Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
