From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 520921F453 for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2018 15:36:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726888AbeKDAsW (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Nov 2018 20:48:22 -0400 Received: from mail-it1-f196.google.com ([209.85.166.196]:50209 "EHLO mail-it1-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726387AbeKDAsW (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Nov 2018 20:48:22 -0400 Received: by mail-it1-f196.google.com with SMTP id k206-v6so7179511ite.0 for ; Sat, 03 Nov 2018 08:36:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=eWJeHcbfWdyK8coO/QTkqn9Ami77ha6taKtbVJL8waQ=; b=hSjAZgYGGu0X8k09TfSkseUAdIWedJnrtaBUrxxUElhbfW3wRuB/NbpJyTtGiFowrX 2WXUqFJe6b/dSxJIMsNO+yIvxAJ1D3fwdHFI79yH3LFDVcVIXsWaZaJG5PHha9m6/7V3 N9+jRhobTeE1nHt72lzc0FpEXqRtAre2/hH9862nbcPbxGfo5svJveL1PHfN/P7LsrLk PRmYzYMjOtBmLbQr0nyQhfYlydD5AurokxjcRgagNqEL6QlgT8ThnAzIX7MrkMETva6I kWd2a5aS4mUnAE0bLakEN1sZgw2CmYPd+pdhmw+jaX4Ye808kb8MR4Og3iEB87KG//kW kINQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=eWJeHcbfWdyK8coO/QTkqn9Ami77ha6taKtbVJL8waQ=; b=ra/TcfWq8beDLMSt+eUH4G20b4PBPs+UnlffWC2GBG4WuO/EhR0bVWih3qj2yYsClb uM1mxaou9sec5VgPN5fnx8nkommHxm0YzC/q3kq7RJIvR54aSxEll9pr39jMy5qsebyW Sg1dkCRU3oRpu08rebhhI2Xw3HGv+eoklssSLYI+Er6LEYECI1IdXO+GA5HpE68Me0WE k98GJukDvO237cZdThzls3ywkQrjR7oI+tHsKGwe/HZIDOjSV2wszMgbAI6c/Wm8MPJa JjZq4GezaJ49/fJ5KExKoDm6Dd4z9FMMlJS+3Pht0EzBVfwPjRHun6hQt1rZHES5sSWS ObNg== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gIlwMqek9a3PoMLUwtsqQjXETj04RmOhNUKT80RU3q2x6/qgIFY u4YcRUldKu0IJHVFgnusLm/IvLLpW/emYp5CCMUXAQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5c5Ky7ps9R33X3Rt/EBLWGz6DemDwuGqUSqEnFmM/fX3BQSx+v91f/WQI9QwGaKmrDIeLGhIMbxfYexZR09ZQc= X-Received: by 2002:a02:9795:: with SMTP id s21-v6mr14188602jaj.92.1541259403204; Sat, 03 Nov 2018 08:36:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181020193020.28517-1-mgorny@gentoo.org> <1541259137.1028.12.camel@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <1541259137.1028.12.camel@gentoo.org> From: Duy Nguyen Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 16:36:17 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] gpg-interface.c: detect and reject multiple signatures on commits To: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= Cc: Git Mailing List , Junio C Hamano Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 4:32 PM Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny w= rote: > > Perhaps my gpg is too old? > > > > $ gpg --version > > gpg (GnuPG) 2.1.15 > > libgcrypt 1.7.3 > > Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > > License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later > > This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. > > There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. > > > > Home: /home/pclouds/.gnupg > > Supported algorithms: > > Pubkey: RSA, ELG, DSA, ECDH, ECDSA, EDDSA > > Cipher: IDEA, 3DES, CAST5, BLOWFISH, AES, AES192, AES256, TWOFISH, > > CAMELLIA128, CAMELLIA192, CAMELLIA256 > > Hash: SHA1, RIPEMD160, SHA256, SHA384, SHA512, SHA224 > > Compression: Uncompressed, ZIP, ZLIB, BZIP2 > > Perhaps this is indeed specific to this version of GnuPG. The tests > pass for me with both 1.4.21 and 2.2.10. We don't have 2.1* in Gentoo > anymore. Yeah I have not really used gpg and neglected updating it. Will try it now. The question remains though whether we need to support 2.1* (I don't know at all about gnupg status, maybe 2.1* is indeed too old/buggy that nobody should use it and so we don't need to support it). --=20 Duy