[aur-general] Fwd: gnupg-largekeys in AUR

[Ido Rosen]

Patch submitted.  I hope it gets accepted... :-/

https://bugs.g10code.com/gnupg/issue1573

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Ido Rosen <ido at kernel.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Jerome Leclanche <adys.wh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Ido Rosen <ido at kernel.org> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Jerome Leclanche
>> > <adys.wh at gmail.com>wrote:
>> >
>> >> What's the outcome on this? I'm interested in large keys in default
>> >> gnupg.
>> >>
>> >> That said, is there a reason why the patch isnt upstream yet?
>> >> J. Leclanche
>> >>
>> >>
>> > It was rejected upstream previously a few times.
>> >
>> > If we want it, it has to be a patch on upstream in our gpg version.  I
>> > believe the reasoning that allowing larger key sizes are a performance
>> > issue for mobile does not really apply here.
>>
>> That sounds like the kind of perfect use case for a compile-time option.
>>
>> J. Leclanche
>>
>
> If you mean an upstream compile-time option (i.e. not in the PKGBUILD), I
> agree wholeheartedly.  Now all we have to do is convince Werner Koch, which
> means emailing gnupg-users/gnupg-devel, or submitting a bug report with a
> patch (and a copyright assignment).
>
> Closed bugs related to this are:
> https://bugs.g10code.com/gnupg/issue1441
> https://bugs.g10code.com/gnupg/issue1460
>
> FWIW, the pattern in upstream seems to be that anyone who suggests a larger
> max key size gets told no for a few years, and then it happens anyway.  That
> is, if you can call 2 data points (2048, then 4096) a pattern...
>