enigmail with pgp 2.2.4

Dmitry Gudkov bereska at hotmail.com
Thu Feb 22 21:50:01 CET 2018

Hi Peter,

thank for your attention to this smallest problem of mine which I
wouldn't even hope to have your attention for to begin with)

my bad, I should have started a new thread, well noted

on the other hand that's probably why I suddenly had all the big gnupg
minds helping me)

what a rewarding side effect of unwittingly breaking the housekeeping rules)

seriously now ...

it was a fresh ubuntu 16.04 install

it came with gnupg 1.4.20 and 2.1.11

i compiled gnupg 2.2.4

it worked just fine in terminal and after configuring Enigmail with the
new gpg location works there as well

do you think i still have a problem?

thank you


On 22.02.2018 23:17, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 22/02/18 18:10, Dmitry Gudkov wrote:
>> problem solved by configuring Enigmail to use the new gnupg location in
>> /usr/local/bin/gpg (in the "Preferences" dialog, "Basic" tab, override
>> the default setting /usr/bin/gpg2)
> While my mind was idly mulling this over, I suddenly wondered if what
> you are doing is even supposed to work at all. I think perhaps you just
> haven't discovered the dire consequences of it yet.
> GnuPG 1.4 and 2.0 are co-installable, and will happily work installed on
> the same system.
> GnuPG 1.4 and 2.1+ are in the basis co-installable, but still can
> present you with issues like keyrings going out of sync or requiring
> careful crafting of configuration files, off the top of my head.
> But 2.0 and 2.1+ are definitely not co-installable. You can't have them
> both on the same system. Right now you put GnuPG 2.2 and its
> dependencies in /usr/local, but GnuPG 2.0 and its dependencies are still
> in /usr. Their dependencies might start to mingle.
> The only way in which this might work is if I misinterpreted "not
> co-installable", and 2.0 in /usr and 2.1+ in /usr/local is not actually
> an instance of "co-installation". But I don't think that's the case. It
> might also work by pure chance and break horribly on the next update.
> A solution, where GnuPG 2.1+ is statically linked against its
> dependencies, was discussed here:
> <https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2018-February/059969.html>
> Werner introduced the partial static linking in the just released 2.2.5.
> Oh, and by the way, a little housekeeping information... You started
> your thread on the mailing list by replying to a completely unrelated
> thread (wotmate: simple grapher for your keyring). Could you please
> start a new thread the next time? Just address a message to
> <gnupg-users at gnupg.org> instead of replying to an existing message.
> Those of us with a threading view of the mailing list now see it as
> somehow being a part of the "wotmate: simple grapher for your keyring"
> thread, but they bare no relation whatsoever.
> HTH,
> Peter.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/attachments/20180222/6b3cf828/attachment.sig>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list