I sent this a while ago in case anybody else wants to read it, but
accidentally only to Don.
On Jan 28, 2016 7:42 AM, "Schlacta, Christ" wrote:
> Unofficially, but functionality and contextually correct.. A cryptographic
> signature is a cryptographically strong hash of a message that has been
>
Did you say this was on a VM? We've had corrupted files with 'cp' from one
file system to another on a VM box if it decided to do a vmotion while the copy
was in progress.
Just remember -- "To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a
computer."(Paul Ehrlich)
-Original Messag
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 20:15, r...@sixdemonbag.org said:
> Really? I thought GPGME had a dependency on libgpg-error, and the
> COPYING file for that is clearly GPLv2.
That is just a file. COPYING describes the licence used for the manual
and the tools. COPYING.LIB describes the license for the li
On Thursday 28 January 2016 09:31:31 Aaron Tovo wrote:
> Thanks for the info.
>
> Today I re-downloaded the .bz2 and .sig. And the verification worked
> (see output below). I did file diffs between the new and the previous
> downloads with 'diff' and they are identical. So I tried verify on the
>
> That is right for GnuPG but not for GPGME. From gpgme/AUTHORS:
Really? I thought GPGME had a dependency on libgpg-error, and the
COPYING file for that is clearly GPLv2.
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailma
On 1/28/2016 4:32 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
...
>
> Antony Prince was the guy updating Guardian Project's code. See the
> thread at:
>
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gnupg/users/73146
>
> According to Antony, you can grab his updates from:
>
> ftp://blazrsoft.com/gnupg-f
On 2016-01-28 16:31, Aaron Tovo wrote:
I did file diffs between the new and the previous
downloads with 'diff' and they are identical. So I tried verify on
the
previous download and it worked this time. Very confusing.
My guess is that sharp-eyed Damien Goutte-Gattat was correct and you
were
Thanks for the info.
Today I re-downloaded the .bz2 and .sig. And the verification worked
(see output below). I did file diffs between the new and the previous
downloads with 'diff' and they are identical. So I tried verify on the
previous download and it worked this time. Very confusing.
I've al
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 09:08:43PM -0500, Don Saklad wrote:
> What's the contextual definition of the term?... signature
> as this term is used for GNUpg
Since you have only received (not so) funny answers: a signature, in
PGP, serves more or less the same purpose of a handwritten one.
Most of t
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 23:39, list.gnupg-us...@acme.nu said:
> $ gpg-connect-agent -v
> gpg-connect-agent: connection to agent established
>> SCD GETINFO version
> ERR 103 unknown command
You are not running the GnuPG gpg-agent. Very likely the
gnome-keyring-daemon has hijacked the socket gpg uses
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:54, r...@sixdemonbag.org said:
> The GnuPG developers have historically been unwilling to provide GPGME
> under any terms except the GPL. If you need an LGPLed GPGME, you're out
> of luck.
That is right for GnuPG but not for GPGME. From gpgme/AUTHORS:
License (software)
On Wednesday 27 January 2016 21:08:43 Don Saklad wrote:
> What's the contextual definition of the term?... signature
> as this term is used for GNUpg
A signature, also known as a "John Hancock":
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JohnHancocksSignature.svg
--
Samir Nassar
sa...@samirnassar.
Probably. Although I did get a failure when using both parameters, but
it was a different error message.
$ gpg --verify libgpg-error-1.21.tar.bz2.sig libgpg-error-1.21\(1\).tar.bz2
gpg: can't open `libgpg-error-1.21.tar.bz2.sig'
gpg: verify signatures failed: file open error
But I was also renam
Hi,
> Aaron Tovo hat am 28. Januar 2016 um 06:12
> geschrieben:
> I re-downloaded sig file and it still fails the gpg --verify test.
>
> $ gpg --verify libgpg-error-1.21.tar.bz2.sig gpg: Signature made Sat 12
> Dec 2015 06:03:30 AM CST using RSA key ID 4F25E3B6
> gpg: BAD signature from "Werne
Hi,
> Andrew Gallagher hat am 27. Januar 2016 um 15:20
> geschrieben:
>
>
> On 26/01/16 23:52, NIIBE Yutaka wrote:
> >
> > It had been difficult to configure GNOME keyring (to stop the feature
> > of gpg-agent) properly. Here is some info:
> >
> > http://www.gniibe.org/memo/notebook/gno
> Moreover the license is GPL and we would need LGPG. Maybe this point
> could be solved with separate license negotiations.
The GnuPG developers have historically been unwilling to provide GPGME
under any terms except the GPL. If you need an LGPLed GPGME, you're out
of luck.
If you can't/won't
>> But we decided to not use the existing wrapper, because it is old,
>> (seems) unmaintained and we would like to have simpler interfaces and
>> one solution for both, the C++ and Java world. Means: we just want to
>> provide the simple and small interface in C++ and wrap this with JNI
>> for Jav
> According to Antony, you can grab his updates from:
>
> ftp://blazrsoft.com/gnupg-for-java/
>
> It wasn't responding for me just now, though.
His webserver, though, is still going strong. Try:
https://www.blazrsoft.com/gnupg-for-java/
_
> I guess I'm in real trouble now.
Maybe less than you think!
> But we decided to not use the existing wrapper, because it is old,
> (seems) unmaintained and we would like to have simpler interfaces and
> one solution for both, the C++ and Java world. Means: we just want to
> provide the simple a
>From Werner: "gpg2 can't use [custom passphrase handlers] as [using
>gpg-]agent is a hard requirement. The only reason for keeping the
>passphrase callback is for symmetric encryption."
I guess I'm in real trouble now. The reason for this is a bit complex. My
encprytion
class is part of a fram
> Thank you for this encouraging words. In fact I got solved another problem.
Woot!
> The only problem remaining is that the application still ignores my
> own password callback and uses the GnuPG default:
This is actually expected behavior. See:
https://bugs.gnupg.org/gnupg/issue767
>Don't give up!
>So far we've cleared two major problems: the first was GnuPG taking ~15
>minutes to generate a certificate, and the second was GPGME not working
>with your callback. Two major problems solved in two days. Imagine
>what we can get solved by the end of the week.
>Programming is
Fulano Diego Perez:
> In my case on Debian,
Are you on Debian stretch amd64 ?
What are the versions of your dependencies ?
We should compare jamon to jamon.
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/g
On 01/28/2016 06:12 AM, Aaron Tovo wrote:
I downloaded libgpg-error-1.21.tar.bz2 again today and it has a the
correct size (763186)
-rw-rw-r-- 1 aaron aaron 763186 Jan 27 22:53 libgpg-error-1.21(1).tar.bz2
I re-downloaded sig file and it still fails the gpg --verify test.
Is the old libgpg-
24 matches
Mail list logo
