- Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Advanced Search
- Transactions
- Transaction Logs
All Stories
Today
Looks good to me on gpg4win-5.0.2-beta2 @ win11.
- local conf after 2 saves (additional entry in local conf):
- local conf after 2 saves (additional entry in global conf):
Looks almost good to me on gpg4win-5.0.2-beta2 @ win11.
It doesn't look like much was improved on Kleopatra side in gpg4win-5.0.2-beta-2 @ win11.
I've made the above ticket for Q2. Regarding Q3 we leave it as is, if customers should complain we could then consider changing that.
Regarding Q1: we should talk about that next week. But I'll close this ticket.
gpg4win-5.0.2-beta-2 @ win11:
Looks good to me on gpg4win-5.0.2-beta2 @ win11.
Additionally, the action is no longer offered for keys with an encryption-capable secret primary key without secret encryption subkey.
And sharing the secret signing subkey isn't offered anymore if this is a card key.
This is now a wontfix, because:
- mapping is no longer based on email
- if no matching secret key is available for that account, the native client shows a message ([T7684])
Suggested patch in work/tfry/connect_check_email :
Is this still a requirement?
There's something wrong. I suspect that gpgme is too old. Yeah, gpg4win 5 uses gpgme 2.0.1 and gpgmepp/gpgmeqt 2.0.0. The changes to force deletion was added later.
well, you are showing 4 pinentry-qt windows above. The reference to pinentry meant those windows.
In T7502#214891, @ebo wrote:Q3: Would you make the text in "Certify shared secret key?" wrap?
In T7502#214891, @ebo wrote:Q2: For 2 and 3 "Certify new certificate? You have imported an new certificate (public key) […]" is not strictly correct, this could be confusing. Maybe we could use the "Certify shared secret key?" instead and change it a bit to make it fit this case too? How about starting with:
"You have imported a shared secret key / a key without primary part." And then leave out the "shared" in the second sentence and in the window title.
In T7502#214891, @ebo wrote:Q1: Does showing the "Detailed results of importing" make sense for the above cases? One could argue that we could remove it for all single imports where any dialog is shown.
For verification text improvements we have various other tickets, see T8095. I'll add this one as another of those.
@ikloecker said (paraphrased by me):


