From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Dec 19 15:36:36 2021 Received: (at 52483) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Dec 2021 20:36:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48305 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mz2v6-0005zd-0K for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:36:36 -0500 Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.24]:32799) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mz2v4-0005zQ-3x for 52483@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:36:34 -0500 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AE3432009BD; Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:36:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:36:28 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=3fgZhrRh74ceoJPE/SisiCfu LUe/D0pg5scxzwWQQRg=; b=nhyPGYGQ+FdLE18Jdc+JQ2Aeo2M8iQdke6C0qnd4 GUNo5I1DN6tiFgv88nzPw834MY7yxuG44AX2H/2YuHyJItqAm5o0kQ1FYQ53ndsY MyjXB3SPyCD8bBthmAZ95BdHXuAC8gJAAtc6mQjmoTlMlzv1aJAkQLvbNF+v2BSD /RA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=3fgZhr Rh74ceoJPE/SisiCfuLUe/D0pg5scxzwWQQRg=; b=emahvDgeMLCgPYjnuwW46B 8dAgx4gu9VUf85IMKBLuTDZRYgx+z50WDHEAzcMyD9ewV8xLZM69e8g+2mkeBOoJ j0Irpze0AcbdLKDoMxkIJr6H8rK7/PjykwSyICX4flgQym4n+V6xSAjI3OEFtC3P RZzHu2lCtFPZqkoyDHvByijT1knluW+N/MZxWMDtWMkxFCAnaHZ4C3Segybv30fK Ap7Q5R4q5B8KQ4NNlf+dfHtLCzqXZfCtAT8EwGHhpkUtm8OuY4YQSUh/EwSC2w7c i3lk5LnpxY4INBpruRKAh+UvCxpEt/xIvrQtRPqJ4W6A990eI+rqvM6NjZEk5fFA == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvuddruddttddgudegudcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpeffhffvuffkfhggtggujgesthdtredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepnfgvohcu hfgrmhhulhgrrhhiuceolhgvohesfhgrmhhulhgrrhhirdhnrghmvgeqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepueekkedtffdvtddugeejgedtvefhueefiedvjeeitdeigedtveejvdejheff vefgnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheplh gvohesfhgrmhhulhgrrhhirdhnrghmvg X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:36:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2021 15:36:25 -0500 From: Leo Famulari To: Maxim Cournoyer Subject: Re: bug#52483: GnuPG 2.2.30 cannot do symmetric encryption Message-ID: References: <87mtky4ik6.fsf_-_@gmail.com> <874k744a0p.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <874k744a0p.fsf@gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 52483 Cc: 52483@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 03:25:42PM -0500, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > > I tested with GnuPG 2.2.23 by building all packages that depend directly > > on GnuPG. There were no new failures on x86_64-linux when using GnuPG > > 2.2.32. I see that my message was confusing, with mixed up version numbers. There's no regressions on x86_64 with 2.2.32. Since it fixes this bug, I'd like to make it available soon. Maybe we can unhide the gnupg-2.2.32 variable, and remove emacs-pinentry, since everyone is saying that it's no longer useful.