- Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Advanced Search
- Transactions
- Transaction Logs
All Stories
Fri, May 2
Yes, this is related to T7547. With my last fix for that I overlooked that we use PUBKEY_USAGE_CERT to internally request the primary key but that one is not set because in general USAGE_SIG means the same (except for some case in PGP7 mode).
> I'm not sure i understand why "the latest" should be preferred.
A bit more experimentation shows the same behavior, even if Alice's tsig of Bill is full, not marginal, and even if all signatures are made in the same second, which is the finest resolution that OpenPGP objects can report.
Interesting analysis, thanks for the sleuthing! I'm not sure i understand why "the latest" should be preferred. For example, in the graph made in this example, which part of the graph is the "latest"? Since the path from Alice to Carol is two hops long at least, it's conceivable that one path (A→Bob→C) has both "the latest" tsig *and* "the earliest" tsig, if the other path (A→Bill→C) happens to have been made between the other two tsigs.
Thu, May 1
Correction, the _ALL_SOURCE definition only applies if __cplusplus is defined... Strange platform...
Wed, Apr 30
I think you are correct.
Tue, Apr 29
I also spend some time with this and the problem is described by this comment in trustdb.c:
Mon, Apr 28
No, it is not a bug and I beg you not to change the status again. Don't start the same trouble here as some of you guys did with the IETF WG!
I can't speak for C++ but I appreciate that you used the same flag values as in gpgme proper.
Err, I don't see why I would "need to test" anything further.
This is just one build of PGP and you would need to test all versions on Windows, macOS and Unix. You also need to test against all versions of GnuPG since 1998 (when we started with interop tests). We won't change this in GnuPG and risk regression. If you have a problem with that go and add a fix to your tool - name it bug compatibility or whatever. And please do not re-open this bug.
In T7106#185462, @werner wrote:This has been implemented and tested to be compatible with PGP - a looong time ago. iirc this was discussed around 1999 but might be only by private mail between the PGP hackers and me. Thus any change now might break PGP - which is still widely used (although mostly for encryption).