More strangeness.

[Damien Goutte-Gattat]

On 01/13/2015 05:29 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> ... Now, maybe I'm missing something completely obvious here (and if so,
> it wouldn't be the first time), but if I have the secret part of a
> certificate, and that certificate is marked as ultimately trusted, isn't
> it a bit odd that the user IDs would possess undefined validity?

It could be the same problem as the one reported last month by Ximin Luo 
[1,2].

That problem only occurs when the public keys are stored in the new 
keybox format, which would be your case if you were “starting from an 
empty GnuPG 2.1.1 installation”.

Until the bug is fixed, a possible workaround is to force GnuPG 2.1 to 
use the legacy pubring format, e.g. by creating an empty pubring.gpg 
file in GnuPG’s home directory, prior to importing any key.

[1] http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2014-December/029197.html

[2] https://bugs.g10code.com/gnupg/issue1794

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20150113/d64ef65e/attachment.sig>