We do not support 64 bit Windows thus this problem on Cygwin is obvious. Funny that Cygwin falls back to native Windows object in this case.

Sorry, this did not make it into 3.1.6. But I'll definitely see about it for the next release. If it is an institutional / corporate issue you could also contract us through www.gnupg.com

From: aheinecke (Andre Heinecke)
Sent: Montag, 28. Januar 2019 19:25

fwiw. Your patch is beautiful in which it follows our coding style and
debug output. I'm confident that we will accept it but currently I have
to read up on Job's a bit.

Is there a way I could help you with this? This issue is hampering adoption
of GnuPG 2 here.

--

Jan Echternach

Patch applied, thanks.

Patch applied, thanks.

fwiw. Your patch is beautiful in which it follows our coding style and debug output. I'm confident that we will accept it but currently I have to read up on Job's a bit.

That is a very interesting problem that we did not have on our radar.

I've developed a simple patch that sets the CREATE_BREAKAWAY_FROM_JOB flag when creating a new background process. This flag requires a special permission on the job object, which is tested first. This means that the patch only works if the parent process sets JOB_OBJECT_LIMIT_BREAKAWAY_OK on the job object, otherwise the behavior should be as without the patch.

Just commited. Thanks.

On 06/17/2018 02:10 AM, BenM (Ben McGinnes) wrote:

The two subsequent commits are the one I mentioned above (nested try/except
statements) and followed by a major PEP8 compliance overhaul of core.py.

Thanks for the patch and welcome to the weird and wonderful world of FOSS. :)

Patch committed to master in commit 5a80e755008bbb3f4c7f91ffccd38f26cd8b3960

Not to worry, we've all been pretty busy of late.

Apologies for the delay, been working on GSoC stuff.
Here's what I've got as of right now:

Not for export, there's a few traps in there, but if you want to take a second swing at import, I'd probably accept that instead.

That makes sense. If you don't have any other patches floating around for this, would you mind if I took a crack at rewriting export?

Okay, the import is pretty much a match for what I have tucked away elsewhere, to that will probably get merged as is, more or less.

Actually op_import and op_export do work, but they're the underlying SWIG bindings, not the more pythonic layer Justus added a couple of years ago. I'd been planning on fixing that this month (part of the work is in one of the ben/howto-update branches), but not merged with master until it could be documented since there's something potentially hazardous in there (exporting secret keys).

Ah, yes. Will do. Thank you for reminder.

Thank you. I think you can update the comment below the implementation now ("/* FIXME: Implement this when we have the specification for it. */) and the #error line.

Fixed in rM37d62e9d0f68: core: Implement _gpgme_getenv for NetBSD..

I prefer plain git patches. Thanks.

I created a Differential request for this change; not sure which you prefer.

I am closing this bug report, as I can't get feedback to fix something.

gniibe: Can you check the status?

Thanks. That reminds me again that a GPA release is due.

Sure: http://netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?getenv_r++NetBSD-current