This will be in 2.2.18, closing.

In my own opinion, it will be good when desktop environments support GnuPG as one of first class citizens, to protect user's data.
For example, currently, libscret stores secret data (such as WiFi shared secret, etc.) by its own cipher preference and method (and it is symmetric cipher by user's password). I don't think it is secure enough.
For me, it will be good if it is protected by user's gpg key using asymmetric crypto.

UserIDs are mandatory and do not see any reason to change this except maybe by specialized application in the embedded field.

Given that the the angle brackets are elsewhere used to indicate a search by mail address, it would be okay to allow for them in this case too (that is dkg's second example). The risk of a regression in that case is pretty low.

it is just that we won't fix that for gpg 1.4.

Wow thanks for the great explanation! I've always wondered what is the relationship between gnupg and other secrets services. Personally, although Gnome's / KDE's secrets services offer better UX out of the box, I've always preferred gpg's agent because I can control it better from the command line and hence customize it's behavior. The only use I have for gnome-secrets service is for a few passwords I always want them to be cached (because I obtain them in systemd timers+services). Do you think Gnome / KDE will ever plan to _use_ gpg-agent, instead of reimplementing it?

Sorry in advance for long explanation. :-) Well, let me show my stand point at first (to avoid confusion): I don't like the concept of "desktop integration" when it makes difficult for a user to control his environment.

Works! I still wonder though: How come my system / gpg agent has all of a sudden started using the external cache? Is this a new feature of gpg-agent? And what is the meaning of this message:

Could you try to put no-allow-external-cache in your gpg-agent.conf?
If it changes the behavior, it is your desktop environment which caches your input, I suppose.

I thought I close this after the release of 2.2.18.
Anway, it's done, so, closing.

We use "error ..." and "failed to ..." interchangable. The German translation even uses the same term for both.
Thus I think it would be better to keep the old diagnostic but show it only in --verbose mode.

I did not want to move the fingerprint verification process more prominent with an entry field or something like that.

With the new version we get an even more extensive rework of the certify dialog. We now also have support for search tags.

It's probably a wrong encoding in the italian translation. Will be fixed with updating our build system to buster and NSIS-3

Is this resolved?

I tuned down the error message. I don't think there is a problem here anymore.

See also D475.

BTW, since I start my X session with startx, this are the relevant parts I have in my .xinitrc:

So my gpg-agent.conf file looks like this now:

Please add

In T4726#130609, @werner wrote:

-r  STRING

does a remote key lookup only if STRING is a valid addr-spec. No extraction of the addr-spec from STRING is done and thus angle brackets inhibit the use of a remote lookup.

does a remote key lookup only if STRING is a valid addr-spec. No extraction of the addr-spec from STRING is done and thus angle brackets inhibit the use of a remote lookup. This was implemented in this way to be as much as possible backward compatible.

DETAILS says:

*** PLAINTEXT_LENGTH <length>
    This indicates the length of the plaintext that is about to be
    written.  Note that if the plaintext packet has partial length
    encoding it is not possible to know the length ahead of time.  In
    that case, this status tag does not appear.

Sorry, we can't replicate this with the current pinentry version.

I always select both files and click to verify, I thought that was the way
it was supposed to be done, that I should provide the file and the
signature to the program.

Just downloaded the file and signature and there is only one signature. Just verifying the signature also does not result in duplicated results.

"PLAINTEXT 75 ..." means UTF-8 encoding (u) which is not not binary (b) or MIME ('m') and thus on Unix the line endings are converted from CR,LF to LF. On Windows you should see a different length. See plaintext.c#handle_plaintext()

Thanks for the report. I'm only giving it low priority because while it is ugly it is no loss of functionality.