On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 21:37, c...@nymph.paranoici.org said: >>Is there any chance to get that disentangled, maybe by defining a >>separate secret key directory for each public .kbx keyring in use?
No. > The silence makes me believe that what I described is intended behavior, > not a 2.1 design flaw. I'd like to know whether that's correct. Any Correct. The gpg-agent takes care of private keys and does not know about gpg or gpgsm. Deleting a private key is not easy because it may be used by several protocols. This is the reason you see an extra confirmation message when trying to delete a private key. BTW, the use of the --keyring option is in general not a good idea. We would very much like to entirely get rid of them due to the problems assocciated with that kludge (or well, that upward compatibility with PGP). Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
pgp0ZZzf8imO8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
