Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Tue, July 12, 2005 12:33, Werner Koch wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:37:41 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst said:
> >
> >> version of GnuPG in Debian (1.4.1-1). I'm wondering what the stance of
> >> upstream is on this bug: will or won't it be fixed?
> >
> > I don't see the problem with this. In same cases we could create a
> > file with the same permissions as the source file but not in all.
> > Often gpg does not work on the file but just reads the content. This
> > common Unix behaviour (cf. cat(1)). If there are concerns, make sure
> > the umask has ben set properly.
> >
> > Sor signing confidential files, a detached signature is anyway a
> > better choice.
> >
> > Another reason not to change it is that it changes the interface and
> > thus would break myriads of scripts.
>
> Thanks for your reply, if the original submitter (Joey) agrees, then I
> propose to close this bug.
Err... since it's easy to call isatty() on the input stream to find out
if there's an inode associated, I'd rather keep the bug report and add
the wontfix tag.
Regards,
Joey
--
Have you ever noticed that "General Public Licence" contains the word "Pub"?
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
