I have an alternate keyring that I access as follows: 15 gpg --no-default-keyring \ 16 --keyring=path_to_keyring \ 17 --secret-keyring=path_to_secret_keyring \ 18 --trustdb-name=path_to_trustdb $@ After a recent update to gnupg-2.1.15 trying to decrypt with it gives: gpg: Decryption failed: No secret key And --list-secret-keys shows no keys. After downgrading back to gnupg-2.0.28 the problem was fixed. To reproduce create an alternate keyring, run a --decrypt or --list-secret-keys command with the arguments listed above and pointing to the alternate keyring. The keyring that I used was created with an earlier gnupg version. I don't know if it makes a difference. Also, if I understand correctly, 2.0 is the stable branch upstream [1]. So is there a reason for pushing 2.1 to stable users?
Created attachment 450594 [details] emerge --info
(In reply to Fernando Rodriguez from comment #0) > I have an alternate keyring that I access as follows: > > 15 gpg --no-default-keyring \ > 16 --keyring=path_to_keyring \ > 17 --secret-keyring=path_to_secret_keyring \ > 18 --trustdb-name=path_to_trustdb $@ > > After a recent update to gnupg-2.1.15 trying to decrypt with it gives: > > gpg: Decryption failed: No secret key secret-keyring has been deprecated for a while and is ignored in 2.1. If you want a separate secret keyring, use a separate homedir and do a gpg --homedir path/to/homedir --import name-of-secring.gpg
> > > Also, if I understand correctly, 2.0 is the stable branch upstream [1]. So > is there a reason for pushing 2.1 to stable users? 2.0 is EOL 2017. 2.1 is also a stable version (called "modern" for disambiguity reasons) and recommended for most users. From announcements: GnuPG "modern" (2.1) comes with the latest features and is suggested for most users. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
