Implications of a common private keys directory in 2.1

Werner Koch wk at
Mon Nov 21 10:28:47 CET 2016

On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 21:37, caro at said:

>>Is there any chance to get that disentangled, maybe by defining a
>>separate secret key directory for each public .kbx keyring in use?


> The silence makes me believe that what I described is intended behavior,
> not a 2.1 design flaw. I'd like to know whether that's correct. Any

Correct.  The gpg-agent takes care of private keys and does not know
about gpg or gpgsm.  Deleting a private key is not easy because it may
be used by several protocols.  This is the reason you see an extra
confirmation message when trying to delete a private key.

BTW, the use of the --keyring option is in general not a good idea.  We
would very much like to entirely get rid of them due to the problems
assocciated with that kludge (or well, that upward compatibility with



Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20161121/8430740f/attachment.sig>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list