On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:41, sat...@pgpru.com said:
> Same here. Maybe i'm missing something, but it seems without the ability
> to have multiple keyrings in GPG configuration one will lose an ability
> to use detached subkeys (or actually any private keys) stored on a
I am using offline key parts
Doug Barton:
> On 08/09/2011 02:38, Werner Koch wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 20:43, do...@dougbarton.us said:
>>
But fixes a lot of problems. The keyring is a database and if we
distribute this database to several files without a way to sync them;
this leads to problems. You may h
On 08/09/2011 02:38, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 20:43, do...@dougbarton.us said:
>
>>> But fixes a lot of problems. The keyring is a database and if we
>>> distribute this database to several files without a way to sync them;
>>> this leads to problems. You may have not been affect
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 20:43, do...@dougbarton.us said:
>> But fixes a lot of problems. The keyring is a database and if we
>> distribute this database to several files without a way to sync them;
>> this leads to problems. You may have not been affected by such problems
>> but only due to the way
On 06/10/2011 02:43 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> Actually I'm very careful to avoid doing just that. :) I have various
> command-line aliases to move keys between rings depending on their
> status, de-duplicate on import, and cross-check to make sure that I
> haven't missed something.
Could you share
On 6/9/2011 11:56 PM, Werner Koch wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 22:38, do...@dougbarton.us said:
IMO that would be a serious regression. I have several different
But fixes a lot of problems. The keyring is a database and if we
distribute this database to several files without a way to sync them
On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 22:38, do...@dougbarton.us said:
> IMO that would be a serious regression. I have several different
But fixes a lot of problems. The keyring is a database and if we
distribute this database to several files without a way to sync them;
this leads to problems. You may have not
On 06/03/2011 00:19, Werner Koch wrote:
Be warned that future gpg versions may not support the use of multiple
keyrings.
IMO that would be a serious regression. I have several different spheres
where I use PGP, and I use various different keyrings to make it easy to
keep things up to date. I
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:19 AM, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 00:41, dpmc...@gmail.com said:
>
>> 1. Does anyone else have experience with a shared among users keyring?
>
> Be warned that future gpg versions may not support the use of multiple
> keyrings. It is not easy to define the s
On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 00:41, dpmc...@gmail.com said:
> 1. Does anyone else have experience with a shared among users keyring?
Be warned that future gpg versions may not support the use of multiple
keyrings. It is not easy to define the semantics for this as it is
similar to a translucent filesyste
Am 02.06.2011 00:41, schrieb Dan McGee:
> So my questions are:
> 1. Does anyone else have experience with a shared among users keyring?
> 2. What is best/secure practice when it comes to this? Outside of
> --lock-never, yum does something that seems silly, but works- make a
> user-owned copy of the
We're trying to get a full implementation of package and database
signing going for Arch Linux using gpgme/gpg, and have run into a few
small hiccups. The goal was to actually use the web of trust features
rather than relying on gpgv and trusting everything in a given
keyring, as it seems every oth
12 matches
Mail list logo
