Arch Linux

Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Reporting_Bug_Guidelines

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in Unsupported. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
Tasklist

FS#28931 - [gpgme,gnupg] remove dependency on gnupg from gpgme and move remove gnupg from core

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Tom Gundersen (tomegun) - Thursday, 15 March 2012, 23:21 GMT
Last edited by Gaetan Bisson (vesath) - Saturday, 24 March 2012, 23:12 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category Packages: Core
Status Closed
Assigned To Tobias Powalowski (tpowa)
Andreas Radke (AndyRTR)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 1
Private No

Details

gpgme is in [core] as it is needed by pacman. It currently depends on both gnupg and gnupg2, but as far as I can tell this is redundant, and can easily be reduced to only depend on gnupg2. This patch to the PKGBUILD works fine for me: http://paste.xinu.at/Sn0U/.

Doing this would allow us to move gnupg back to extra (or community for that matter).
This task depends upon

Closed by  Gaetan Bisson (vesath)
Saturday, 24 March 2012, 23:12 GMT
Reason for closing:  Implemented
Additional comments about closing:  gpgme-1.3.1-4 and gnupg-2.0.18-2 in [testing]
Comment by Gaetan Bisson (vesath) - Friday, 16 March 2012, 00:06 GMT
I do not understand why we even keep gnupg: it's an old branch and gnupg2 is the most recent stable upstream branch. I've been running a gnupg2 package with provides=gnupg and a /usr/bin/gpg symlink seamlessly for months. There are many rumors (as in  FS#22110 ) but the fact is nobody ever clearly reported an issue when making gnupg2 provide gnupg.

So I suggest making this the new gnupg: http://paste.xinu.at/Gji/
And removing gnupg2 from our repos...
Comment by Tom Gundersen (tomegun) - Friday, 16 March 2012, 00:19 GMT
@Gaetan: I agree, this makes the most sense to me (if there are indeed no valid uses of gnupg any more).
Comment by Andreas Radke (AndyRTR) - Friday, 16 March 2012, 06:59 GMT
This should be brought to our mailing lists form some more public discussion.
Comment by Gaetan Bisson (vesath) - Friday, 16 March 2012, 07:21 GMT Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Sunday, 18 March 2012, 01:08 GMT Comment by Gaetan Bisson (vesath) - Wednesday, 21 March 2012, 11:22 GMT
A consensus has apparently been reached on arch-dev-public.

Andreas, Tobias: If you wish, I would be happy to implement this change.
Comment by Tobias Powalowski (tpowa) - Saturday, 24 March 2012, 08:10 GMT
Yes go ahead with the consensus.
Comment by Gaetan Bisson (vesath) - Saturday, 24 March 2012, 13:43 GMT
I have pushed gnupg-2.0.18-1 and gpgme-1.3.1-3 to [testing]. Let me know if you have any issue.
Comment by Jason William Walton (jasonww) - Saturday, 24 March 2012, 21:47 GMT
Was renaming really necessary?
Comment by Gaetan Bisson (vesath) - Saturday, 24 March 2012, 22:01 GMT
Renaming what? The package name? Yes.
Comment by Jason William Walton (jasonww) - Saturday, 24 March 2012, 22:57 GMT
How so? gnupg is not gnupg2, and there a lot of annoying inconsistencies between both branches.

I would've expected a simple rebuild of gpgme, with gnupg moving out of core - not out of the repos.
Comment by Gaetan Bisson (vesath) - Saturday, 24 March 2012, 23:11 GMT
Feel free to read the discussions that have been going on for weeks before sharing your view.

Feel free to open bug reports for specific issues too.

Loading...