On Sat, 2018-11-03 at 16:36 +0100, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 4:32 PM Michał Górny <mgorny@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Perhaps my gpg is too old? > > > > > > $ gpg --version > > > gpg (GnuPG) 2.1.15 > > > libgcrypt 1.7.3 > > > Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > > > License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <https://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> > > > This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. > > > There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. > > > > > > Home: /home/pclouds/.gnupg > > > Supported algorithms: > > > Pubkey: RSA, ELG, DSA, ECDH, ECDSA, EDDSA > > > Cipher: IDEA, 3DES, CAST5, BLOWFISH, AES, AES192, AES256, TWOFISH, > > > CAMELLIA128, CAMELLIA192, CAMELLIA256 > > > Hash: SHA1, RIPEMD160, SHA256, SHA384, SHA512, SHA224 > > > Compression: Uncompressed, ZIP, ZLIB, BZIP2 > > > > Perhaps this is indeed specific to this version of GnuPG. The tests > > pass for me with both 1.4.21 and 2.2.10. We don't have 2.1* in Gentoo > > anymore. > > Yeah I have not really used gpg and neglected updating it. Will try it > now. The question remains though whether we need to support 2.1* (I > don't know at all about gnupg status, maybe 2.1* is indeed too > old/buggy that nobody should use it and so we don't need to support > it). GnuPG upstream considers 2.2 as continuation/mature version of 2.1 branch. They currently support running either newest version of 1.4 (legacy) or newest version of 2.2 [1]. In other words, this might have been a bug that was fixed in newer release (possibly 2.2.x). [1]:https://gnupg.org/download/index.html#text-end-of-life -- Best regards, Michał Górny
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
