gpg expiration date format (was: Re: gpgme op_gen bug)

[Jacob Perkins]

Ok, I was actually sending a time_t value.  I think this makes more
sense from a programming and even usability perspective (i.e. using
gnome-date-edit), so maybe gpgme could do interpretation if gnupg
requires a human readable date.

On Sun, 2002-11-10 at 21:56, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 01:36:36AM +0100, Miguel Coca wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 15:12:22 -0600, Jacob Perkins wrote:
> > > gpgme-0.3.12 seems to have a key generation bug in that even if given an
> > > expiration date, it still generates a key that does not expire.
> > 
> > Hi Jacob,
> > 
> > This seems to work for me now, but it looks like it's tricky to get the
> > date string right in the parameters pased to gpgme. The line must be like
> > this:
> > 
> > Expire-Date: 2005-01-01
> > 
> > If you write the date any differently (2005-1-1, 20050101), it won't work,
> > and in some cases even fail silently and create keys that don't expire.
> 
> All things like this are genuine gnupg issues. gpgme doesn't interpret the
> generation request, it just passes it forward.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20021111/ec1209b0/attachment.bin