-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 06/04/12 19:39, Allan McRae wrote: > On 05/06/12 12:37, David Benfell wrote: >> On 06/04/12 15:46, Karol Blazewicz wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:11 PM, David Benfell >>> <benfell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> I *think* you're right. But perhaps pacman-key should give a >>>> clue that this is what's going on. >> >>> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/28027 If you have time, please >>> file this upstream if it haven't been filed in the mean time. >> >> The decision at that link seems to view this as an upstream >> problem and points to https://bugs.g10code.com/gnupg/ as >> upstream. But the latter link never mentions pacman. So I'm >> confused. >> > > Because pacman has nothing to do with generating a key. It is all > gnupg... > Ah, but gnupg on its own advises that it needs entropy. I didn't see this message from pacman-key, so pacman-key would seem to be *suppressing* the message. If I'm getting all this right, then the decision to bump this upstream seems inappropriate. - -- David Benfell benfell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPzXM0AAoJELT202JKF+xpKVAP/16+yG55LbtF7g7msH2fqs4s VSOxH89elw226d9GfsEQu/36H5wWNdua++KOGpVLvj9pM1IWs4LGLsmyDSXSBMH6 PQyTNT8tRniBPpVzGWZJmD2kd1npzAaIrV7ds2tfVF6PA3wOJhwAFtR6wpUX7hw8 dA49X2YPRL40nMpVm7emuNbP1wyhbpVJJm58rbxloiPrfFYIorAbL6RMl7EtVP+W T1FsiIf1EahdInhNavfgvV+D2xdhmZPKw8v7s2MVA76VUwF0xB3iHCIEx/LZb6DP 1dlXsVwC3Hvfw3U+s9TaHjsxjXEVy9+qp4U/4BmpHED9UMsJC/4G+IWVwff7zJbd zDmQbVDC3QCQkf/GO/PqzUp+4YB4OpUCsqKdAmIxpAeZD8IWgBYcUuPQ0bTL2kDh 2aZdaGYGn1M+t4nxbXnD+LQloEjPCcftoEMLCWZMa/YKZNyhBUJAHLWBF/9Ic+QD HUikIGvy6cJ7sdLRCFoquolnwXPQ/LszBZ0M8MEaOv438Le38K9ZKVblw6qUrnwx YA0RPbVjkip/P33Coek2bpvjoVXZkzCAsg8XAPKpgO7RuMihPVob0KAnflAEhpBJ 6LCVeMK8cTkXHKEdn0SoP3VLbSI+B+a8EB12IsbrsaK0gB4qS46G1gU9vH05n8+D ZI11+6daTUCzDl/1FyMm =pBam -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
