Thanks for the reporting templates; would mind to fill in some bug details?

Here goes.

With Gpg4win 3.1.4 and the two blocking options, searching for any name in Inbox, entering more than 2 letters will crash Outlook 100%.

there should be clearer labelling of smartcards so that users can tell them apart more easily

I did a small update to D467: Enable dynamically defining pkg_config_libdir for multiarch. The name is changed to "auto" (was: "unknown"). It now support other cases where CC is not a kind of gcc.

Support the case when CC is the one of clang.

That is up to @BenM

The default mode of the tool is to use the Native Messaging protocol which prefixes requests and responses with a 32 bit native endian length header. It is the default due to the way browsers call native messaging programs. If you want to use it in a different way, use the option --single or --interactive.

That it will not be a problem on that or near that date but already now because some use expiration times of 20 years.

what does "not only on Jan 19, 2038" mean here?

the error i'd seen earlier after reverting the change was an error due to running t-callbacks.py on its own, without the rest of the test suite framework. running it within the test suite framework (with the change reverted), it passes without a problem. I've uploaded 1.12.0-4 to debian with a patch to t-callbacks.py. I can apply it upstream, if you want me to.

See T4195 for the general problem

I have not looked at the new error but the year 2099 is clearly a y2k38 problem. gpg has some precautions but I have not checked the key generation code. The gpgme interface uses a signed long for the expiration time, although that it parses the dates received from gpg as an unsigned long. Right now, I am not sure why we did this because an unsigned long would just work. Maybe we can change or enhance the interface. But in any case this is a general problem and not specific to this bug.

@BenM thinks that swig is still the best option. Actually this case helped to find a bug in gpgme. See my next commit.

The error might have to do with rM46da79e3de99a7b65748994921d6aab73b9974e7 which looks like it might run afoul of 32-bit time_t (Y2K38 problem?).

here's me running just the specific test:

If the swig interface isn't robust, can we replace it with something that will be more robust? Or do we need to wrap it with hand-crafted error checks that describe the API's constraints? It's pretty bad form to segfault python.

When parms is malformed but not NULL, then the error appears to be a bug in the python bindings in _wrap_gpgme_release. maybe something is going wrong because of the "cannot allocate memory" error? in particular:

That swig based interface is not really robust and it can't be because it does not known about API requirements. I bet there are other places where mandatory parameters are not checked.

To deal with passing None correctly, it looks to me like the problem is inside get_parameter() in src/genkey.c -- there ought to be a check for parms being NULL, and then returning either GPG_ERR_INV_VALUE or something else. otherwise, the segfault happens inside strstr.

It the first error (first param = None) is a segfault in versions 1.11.1-2 (debian unstable i386) and 1.8.0-3+b2 (debian stretch amd64).

Dear aheinecke,

Hi Adam,

My pic didn't appear inline, so I'll add it again as attachment

maybe a setting is also involved. marking the mail in the Junk folder gives:

There was a report about this in the past T3956
I tried it out then with a junk folder and for me it worked so I closed the issue as a duplicate of the general moving mail problem.

I broke it a day before the release and didn't notice.
Since f34cd2782bc0cd6f359c14de4d4a889ec4e49a6e it accidentally logs all string allocations if one of DEBUG_TRACE DEBUG_MEMORY or DEBUG_DATA is set. The intention was that it should log when all three are set.

FWIW, you should better not change the build-aux/ files becuase they are supposed to be updated from libgpg-error.

Is this new in gpgme 1.12 or might it also be in older versions?

@werner, I think that the scope is different. The bug reporters' claim were basically "GnuPG's cross building is different (for them), why?". They didn't claim GnuPG were unable to be cross-build.

That is a different python binding than what we provide with gpgme. Our gpgme based binding is called "gpg" and was formerly known as "pyme". I strongly suggest to install gpgme and not to use pip because the "gpg" module over there has not been updated for quite some time.

from pip i used command
pip install gnupg

From where did you go that "python package gnupg==2.3.1" ?
Sorry, I can see what kind of Python code this is. It is not part of GnuPG, though.

"dkg (Daniel Kahn Gillmor)" <noreply@dev.gnupg.org> writes:

what's the status on this? i'd love to be able to build binaries for
both python3.6 and 3.7 for debian. as it stands right now, the
python3.7 continuous integration test for debian is failing
https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/unstable/amd64/g/gpgme1.0/1158040/log.gz.

Frankly, I still do not understand the problems with cross-compiling. Since 2014 we support SYSROOT and the respective foo-config script is installed as $SYSROOT/bin/foo-config. This guarantees that a matching config script is used and because it is a script it works on all platforms from which we are cross-building. It is also fine to install that very script in the bin dir of the (target) host; it will work there as long as host is a Unix system. So it does not matter whether it is a plain text file (a la pgk-config) or a POSIX script. The only important thing is to really install the foo-config at SYSROOOT/bin - make install does it.

Hi Andre,

I think it has something to do with the number of files. Just encrypting / decrypting a 10GB random data file did not show a problem.

Hi Andre,
thanks for the fast feedback. I will wait for the 3.1.4 Release then and test it afterwards. If it still occurs i will update this thread. Thanks for your help!
All the best
Dorian

Hi Andre,
thanks for the feedback, will try this asap when i have the chance to get on the laptop of my co-worker. Will update you afterwards. Thanks for the help!
All the best
Dorian

Thanks for the report. Prio High as this is data loss. I won't stop the 3.1.4 release which is currently in progress though as this issue does not appear to be a regression.

Your best bet is to try it on the command line to see if that provides some more useful output:

That is a strange failure. I don't see how that can happen without a legitimate bug.

This patch D467: Enable dynamically defining pkg_config_libdir for multiarch, enables multiarch dynamic PKG_CONFIG_LIBDIR support.

what's the status on this? i'd love to be able to build binaries for both python3.6 and 3.7 for debian. as it stands right now, the python3.7 continuous integration test for debian is failing.

It seems to be a cpp problem. Andre, would you mind to take this bug?

Release today.