Re: upgraded testing and now gpg is not working
On 11/05/2016 02:53 AM, Frank wrote:
Op 05-11-16 om 03:55 schreef H.S.:
I upgraded my testing box last night and now my gpg decryption does not
work anymore.
<SNIP>
gpg2 can't find your secret keys because it stores them elsewhere. For
gpg1 they are in the secring.gpg file and gpg2 looks at the files in the
private-keys-v1.d directory. If this directory does not exist inside
your gnupg directory (probably ~/.gnupg), then the automatic migration
failed somehow.
Earlier reply was inadvertently sent to the user only (Frank, sorry).
Thanks for that background.
I installed gnupg1 and I can use gpg1 command to decrypt my data as
usual (instead of using gpg as I did in the past). However, current gpg,
which links to gpg2, still doesn't work.
I tried exporing my secret keys using gpg1 and importing them using
gpg2, which seems to have gone fine:
$ gpg1 --export-secret-keys | gpg2 --import
< snipped info: 2 not changed, 1 imported>
gpg: Total number processed: 3
gpg: unchanged: 3
gpg: secret keys read: 3
gpg: secret keys unchanged: 3
I can list secret keys using both versions using the following command:
$ gpg1 --list-secret-keys
$ gpg --list-secret-keys
So far, so good.
Still, however, decryption my file using gpg2 does not work: it does not
ask for my passphrase on the std in and just times out. gpg1 works though.
What am I missing?
Package I have on my testing box:
$ COLUMNS=75 dpkg -l gnupg* | grep ^i
ii gnupg 2.1.15-4 amd64 GNU privacy guard - a free PGP re
ii gnupg-agent 2.1.15-4 amd64 GNU privacy guard - cryptographic
ii gnupg-l10n 2.1.15-4 all GNU privacy guard - localization
ii gnupg1 1.4.21-1+b1 amd64 GNU privacy guard - a free PGP re
ii gnupg1-curl 1.4.21-1+b1 amd64 GNU privacy guard - a free PGP re
ii gnupg2 2.1.15-4 all GNU privacy guard - a free PGP re
--
Please reply to this list only. I read this list on its corresponding
newsgroup on gmane.org. Replies sent to my email address are just
filtered to a folder in my mailbox and get periodically deleted without
ever having been read.
Reply to: