-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 06/04/12 19:39, Allan McRae wrote:
On 05/06/12 12:37, David Benfell wrote:
On 06/04/12 15:46, Karol Blazewicz wrote:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:11 PM, David Benfell <benfell@parts-unknown.org> wrote:
I *think* you're right. But perhaps pacman-key should give a clue that this is what's going on.
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/28027 If you have time, please file this upstream if it haven't been filed in the mean time.
The decision at that link seems to view this as an upstream problem and points to https://bugs.g10code.com/gnupg/ as upstream. But the latter link never mentions pacman. So I'm confused.
Because pacman has nothing to do with generating a key. It is all gnupg...
Ah, but gnupg on its own advises that it needs entropy. I didn't see this message from pacman-key, so pacman-key would seem to be *suppressing* the message. If I'm getting all this right, then the decision to bump this upstream seems inappropriate. - -- David Benfell benfell@parts-unknown.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPzXM0AAoJELT202JKF+xpKVAP/16+yG55LbtF7g7msH2fqs4s VSOxH89elw226d9GfsEQu/36H5wWNdua++KOGpVLvj9pM1IWs4LGLsmyDSXSBMH6 PQyTNT8tRniBPpVzGWZJmD2kd1npzAaIrV7ds2tfVF6PA3wOJhwAFtR6wpUX7hw8 dA49X2YPRL40nMpVm7emuNbP1wyhbpVJJm58rbxloiPrfFYIorAbL6RMl7EtVP+W T1FsiIf1EahdInhNavfgvV+D2xdhmZPKw8v7s2MVA76VUwF0xB3iHCIEx/LZb6DP 1dlXsVwC3Hvfw3U+s9TaHjsxjXEVy9+qp4U/4BmpHED9UMsJC/4G+IWVwff7zJbd zDmQbVDC3QCQkf/GO/PqzUp+4YB4OpUCsqKdAmIxpAeZD8IWgBYcUuPQ0bTL2kDh 2aZdaGYGn1M+t4nxbXnD+LQloEjPCcftoEMLCWZMa/YKZNyhBUJAHLWBF/9Ic+QD HUikIGvy6cJ7sdLRCFoquolnwXPQ/LszBZ0M8MEaOv438Le38K9ZKVblw6qUrnwx YA0RPbVjkip/P33Coek2bpvjoVXZkzCAsg8XAPKpgO7RuMihPVob0KAnflAEhpBJ 6LCVeMK8cTkXHKEdn0SoP3VLbSI+B+a8EB12IsbrsaK0gB4qS46G1gU9vH05n8+D ZI11+6daTUCzDl/1FyMm =pBam -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----