On Mon, Jul 05 2021, Stuart Henderson <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2021/07/05 11:25, Edd Barrett wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 12:13:38PM +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: >> > ok jca@ fwiw but as I said Edd has a wip update to 2.3.1. >> >> In hindsight, I think using Stuart's 2.2.29 diff would be better. >> Upstream describes 2.3.x as "the start of public testing releases". I >> think we should give users the most stable packages we can. >> >> In addition to sthen@'s diff, here's updates to libksba and pinentry. >> >> If those are committed, then the only out-of-date gnupg-related >> component would be gpgme (which I've not had time to look at yet, >> sorry). > > I can take a look at gpgme. > >> With libksba, although upstream did major bumps, I can't see any reason >> to do so based on the changes I see to the public API. Hence I've not >> bumped our SO version, but someone should double check my work. We could >> just bump it to be sure. > > They replaced some parts in the middle of struct ksba_cms_s, this struct > is in src/cms.h which isn't in an installed header but it is used in > prototypes that are in the installed ksba.h. So I'm a bit unsure > whether bumping is needed or not
The struct is opaque so this change in particular wouldn't warrant a bump. That being said, > but I think I'd go with "if in doubt, > bump" here to be on the safe side. The ksba_content_type_t enum grew two new possible values. As this enum is used as input parameter and return type for public ksba functions please use at least a minor bump. > Otherwise those are OK sthen@ Seconded. -- jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
