Your message dated Sun, 21 Aug 2016 22:38:15 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#801383: signing-party: Depend on gnupg2?
has caused the Debian Bug report #801383,
regarding signing-party: Depend on gnupg2?
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
801383: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=801383
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: signing-party
Version: 2.1-1
Severity: wishlist
Hello,
>From DebConf, I got the impression that we should start to move to gnupg2, and
even if not gnupg2 seems perfectly stable nowadays and having to keep both
installed seems unnecessary (I have to use v2 for other reasons).
This package depends on gnupg, so I think that at least gnupg2 could be added as
an option.
Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <[email protected]>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi,
On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 at 15:34:37 +0100, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote:
> Thanks for the explanations and quick reply. You can leave it open,
> mark +wontfix or even close the report, as you prefer -- I just wanted
> to make maintainers aware of this, which you already are.
I'm closing this due to gnupg being 2.1.x now.
Cheers,
--
Guilhem.
--- End Message ---
