[PATCH] doc: elaborate on --default-cache-ttl and --max-cache-ttl

Martin Ichilevici de Oliveira iomartin at iomartin.net
Thu Oct 30 14:32:55 CET 2014

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 05:35:05PM +0100, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 16:34, iomartin at iomartin.net said:
> > I'm not sure I'm following you here. On agent/cache.c, the declaration
> > of struct cache_item_s is
> That one is for the internal API.  The command line optiosn are a
> different thing.  Actually, I just pushed a patch which checks the
> ranges of numerical arguments.  With that using -1 is not any long
> possible.
> > on what situations could we have ttl < 0 then if not with
> > default-cache-ttl? Is that what gpg-set-passphrase is for?
> For example via cmd_preset_passphrase().

Ok, got it.

> > Finally, what is the rationale behind max-cache-ttl not allowing
> > "infinite"? Afterall, in practice, it could be achieved by setting an
> > extremely high value for max-cache-ttl. I'd be happy to work on a patch
> Exactly, use something like 0x00ffffff (194 days).  There is small bug
> lingering in the code if you use a too high value, though.


I'm sorry (and I don't mean to be annoying), but I still don't
understand why gnupg doesn't support infinite ttl? Is it by design or
just because it was never implemented?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20141030/9cecfe98/attachment.sig>

More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list