On 2018-09-27 17:05:08, Markus Koschany wrote: > Am 27.09.18 um 04:52 schrieb Antoine Beaupré: > [...] >> Enigmail's work, then, might be better targeted at helping the folks in >> stretch, although I do wonder how we could possibly upgrade GnuPG 2 >> (required to get a new version of Enigmail compatible with TB 60) in >> jessie without causing all sorts of unrelated trouble. Keep in mind that >> Jessie still runs the old 2.0 release instead of the (recommended) 2.1 >> (stretch) or 2.2 (buster) releases. > > Just for the record. I have backported the Buster version of Enigmail to > Stretch and it works simply by removing the versioned dependency on > gnupg2. So far I haven't noticed any issues.
But stretch has GnuPG 2.1 and it's the default gpg binary. jessie will be a whole other story... dkg was saying the reason Enigmail used openpgp.js is because gpg was outdated somehow on some platforms: * instead, i realized that the OpenPGP.js node package was only needed by enigmail for a few things, in particular to avoid needing a newer version of GnuPG. * there were a few small changes that needed to be made to GnuPG to make enigmail pass its test suites properly without OpenPGP.js, so i got them made upstream in GnuPG. * then i stripped OpenPGP.js from enigmail, and bumped enigmail's dependency on GnuPG. Source: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=909000 I wonder what that was all about... Was the solution for stretch finally to remove enigmail from stable and use backports? A. -- Le pouvoir n'est pas à conquérir, il est à détruire - Jean-François Brient, de la servitude moderne