On Samstag, 30. Januar 2021 00:22:11 CET John Scott via Gnupg-users wrote: > On Saturday, January 23, 2021 10:39:30 AM EST Ingo Klöcker wrote: > > Did you have a look at GPGME's tests as working example code? There is a > > test for listing signatures: > > https://dev.gnupg.org/source/gpgme/browse/master/tests/gpg/t-keylist-sig.c > > Thanks, I didn't see that. Except for the difference that I read the keys > from a gpgme_data_t connected to a stream instead of GnuPG's keyring, my > code seems to match up with the test's way of doing things. > > With the debugging information on the invocation of gpg doesn't look > abnormal, and trying in a fresh chroot gets me the same results, so it > seems as though getting detailed signature data from a gpgme_data_t may not > be possible. My example for testing is at > https://salsa.debian.org/-/snippets/519
You are using gpgme_op_keylist_from_data_start(). This effectively does gpg --with-colons --with-fingerprint --import-options import-show --dry-run --import -- <keys.asc (see https://dev.gnupg.org/source/gpgme/browse/master/src/engine-gpg.c;c8fd8870b3bf089f99156448b7d1e59c1150f994$3116) which doesn't print any information on signatures. You would need an additional --with-sig-check if GPGME_KEYLIST_MODE_SIGS is set. Adding this to gpg_keylist_data() should be fairly easy. Feel free to request this feature via https://dev.gnupg.org/, ideally together with a patch. Regards, Ingo
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
