Created attachment 754026 [details] emerge --info app-editors/vim attached The October 30 update to vim-8.2.3428-r1, which I use with vim-gnupg-2.7.1 from [url]https://www.vim.org/scripts/script.php?script_id=3645[/url] rather than the app-vim/gnupg that is in the tree, causes the pinentry popup to come up with Passphrase window to be populated with junk entries. If I back space out junk entries, the password will be accepted. Trial and error shows that masking app-editors/vim-8.2.3428-r1 in /etc/portage/package.mask results in downgrade to app-editors/vim-8.2.0814-r100 which works normally with the vim-gnupg plugin and pinentry wihtout the junk artifacts as it did before. emerge --info app-editors/vim attached.
Thanks for the report. I think we might need to report this upstream (to vim-gnupg?). Interestingly I didn't see anything there yet and I know somebody was using vim-gnupg with the latest version fine..
Is 8.2.3582 any better?
I upgraded to vim and vim-core 8.2.3582 and the junk in the pinentry Passphrase window returns. Downgrade again to vim-8.2.0814-r100 and vim-core-8.2.0814 fixes the problem.
Other uses of gnupg and pinentry with vim-gnupg-2.7.1 do not result in junk in the pinentry Passphrase window. That was how I narrowed down the issue to vim. But, I did not try to revert to earlier versions vim-gnupg or pinentry. I'm using pinentry-1.2.0 and the upgrade to pinentry-1.2.0 on October 17 was apparently uneventful.
(In reply to Andy Figueroa from comment #4) > Other uses of gnupg and pinentry with vim-gnupg-2.7.1 do not result in junk > in the pinentry Passphrase window. That was how I narrowed down the issue to > vim. But, I did not try to revert to earlier versions vim-gnupg or pinentry. > I'm using pinentry-1.2.0 and the upgrade to pinentry-1.2.0 on October 17 was > apparently uneventful. Thanks, I'm currently trying to dig through vim commits. Unfortunately, there's a _lot_... If you feel bored, bisecting would be useful, but you're not obligated to do that. I'm not really a vim user so I'm just looking through commits + bugs between those versions to see what changed, but we were a bit behind, so there's a lot sadly.
(In reply to Sam James from comment #5) > (In reply to Andy Figueroa from comment #4) > > Other uses of gnupg and pinentry with vim-gnupg-2.7.1 do not result in junk > > in the pinentry Passphrase window. That was how I narrowed down the issue to > > vim. But, I did not try to revert to earlier versions vim-gnupg or pinentry. > > I'm using pinentry-1.2.0 and the upgrade to pinentry-1.2.0 on October 17 was > > apparently uneventful. > > Thanks, I'm currently trying to dig through vim commits. Unfortunately, > there's a _lot_... > > If you feel bored, bisecting would be useful, but you're not obligated to do > that. I'm not really a vim user so I'm just looking through commits + bugs > between those versions to see what changed, but we were a bit behind, so > there's a lot sadly. I think reporting it to vim upstream itself (https://github.com/vim/vim/issues) is probably the better option actually.
(In reply to Andy Figueroa from comment #4) > Other uses of gnupg and pinentry with vim-gnupg-2.7.1 do not result in junk > in the pinentry Passphrase window. That was how I narrowed down the issue to > vim. But, I did not try to revert to earlier versions vim-gnupg or pinentry. > I'm using pinentry-1.2.0 and the upgrade to pinentry-1.2.0 on October 17 was > apparently uneventful. I should not have written "vim-gnupg-2.7.1" above. That part wasn't relevant. The objective was to indicate that only use with vim results in the artefact.
(In reply to Sam James from comment #6) > (In reply to Sam James from comment #5) > > (In reply to Andy Figueroa from comment #4) > > > Other uses of gnupg and pinentry with vim-gnupg-2.7.1 do not result in junk > > > in the pinentry Passphrase window. That was how I narrowed down the issue to > > > vim. But, I did not try to revert to earlier versions vim-gnupg or pinentry. > > > I'm using pinentry-1.2.0 and the upgrade to pinentry-1.2.0 on October 17 was > > > apparently uneventful. > > > > Thanks, I'm currently trying to dig through vim commits. Unfortunately, > > there's a _lot_... > > > > If you feel bored, bisecting would be useful, but you're not obligated to do > > that. I'm not really a vim user so I'm just looking through commits + bugs > > between those versions to see what changed, but we were a bit behind, so > > there's a lot sadly. > > I think reporting it to vim upstream itself > (https://github.com/vim/vim/issues) is probably the better option actually. By Gentoo vim maintainers or by me?
(In reply to Andy Figueroa from comment #8) > By Gentoo vim maintainers or by me? If possible, you, just because I can't reproduce this and I wouldn't be able to offer any additional information (just relaying).
(In reply to Sam James from comment #9) > (In reply to Andy Figueroa from comment #8) > > By Gentoo vim maintainers or by me? > > If possible, you, just because I can't reproduce this and I wouldn't be able > to offer any additional information (just relaying). I'll get it done.
