> Yes, that's true. However, this could lead to problems if some day > the format of GnuPG's keyring files should change, and especially > if it should change in some architecture-specific way.
The latter won't ever happen. All file formats used by GnuPG are platform neutral; i.e. we use well defined lengths for all integers, utf-8 for string encoding and network byte ordering. > the same architecture. Well, of course, it would be a pain if > a future GnuPG version would not be able to read the current version's > files, but it *could* happen one day. Of course, I'm NOT speaking The time required to write and test the migration code is actually the reason why we are still using the old format ;-). > gpg --export --armor > pubkeys.txt > gpg --export-secret-keys --armor > seckeys.txt > gpg --export-ownertrust > ownertrust.txt You also better backup the config giles, whoever, they might need adjustments if gpg is installed somewhere else. The option --armor is not required but might be helpful in case the files are transported via FTP and and one forgets to use switch to binary mode. > Still, for the present, all keyrings on all versions of GnuPG seem > to be compatible, so, *for the present*, it is easier to just copy > the files over. The whole point is, that's not guaranteed to work > forever :) Exactly. The whole discussion makes me think about a backup and restore tool. This would in particular be useful for GnuPG-2, which requires a couple files more to be backed up. Salam-Shalom, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Auschnahme regelt ein Bundeschgesetz. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
