On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 12:58:21PM +1300, Andrew Ruthven wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Mon, 2021-01-04 at 11:03 +, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 10:47:30PM +0100, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe its time to switch RT4 to gnupg2?
> >
> > Andrew: I think that this just
Hey,
On Mon, 2021-01-04 at 11:03 +, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 10:47:30PM +0100, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
>
> > Maybe its time to switch RT4 to gnupg2?
>
> Andrew: I think that this just means replicating the changes you made
> in RT5 to drop the gpg1 patches and up
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 10:47:30PM +0100, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Dominic Hargreaves [201215 21:46]:
> > Since #845534 was fixed RT now uses gpg1, which is deprecated, or at
> > least its uses discouraged, in Debian.
>
> As of today, RT4 is apparently the last package directly depe
Hi,
* Dominic Hargreaves [201215 21:46]:
> Since #845534 was fixed RT now uses gpg1, which is deprecated, or at
> least its uses discouraged, in Debian.
As of today, RT4 is apparently the last package directly depending
on gnupg1 in bullseye. The other packages doing so appear to be
using gpg1 o
Source: request-tracker4
Version: 4.2.13-4
Severity: normal
Since #845534 was fixed RT now uses gpg1, which is deprecated, or at
least its uses discouraged, in Debian.
Fixing this is blocked by #845781.
Dominic.
5 matches
Mail list logo