Re: [d...@fifthhorseman.net: Re: gpgme 1.7.0~ alpha or beta to debian experimental?]
Hey, > I'm not entirely sure what to do about the name of the library during > this handoff -- it might drop the "kf5" prefix. If we don't drop the > "kf5" prefix, i suppose we'll need an epoch number in the package > version to make sure that upgrades happen. It's also possible that > we'll need to do a similar thing with qgpgme, i guess. the libs gpgme installs are without the kf5 prefix, so we have should also name the package like the libs without kf5 prefix. So we don't end up in having the same package names, what makes the life easier for the transition :) I'll hope I will finish the build of c++/qt bindings the next days and will publish them at a private clone of the debian repo, so dkg can check my changes before pulling them in. Just to make sure, I don't break your workflow. Regards, sandro signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
Re: [d...@fifthhorseman.net: Re: gpgme 1.7.0~ alpha or beta to debian experimental?]
¡Hola Maximiliano! On Fri 2016-10-07 09:45:25 -0400, Maximiliano Curia wrote: > Yes, sorry for not replying sooner. We are not planning to upload a new > version of gpgmepp (we are currently skipping 16.08 and upstream is > apparently > dropping gpgmepp for 16.12). ok, cool. so then taking it over with the gpgme1.0 source package should be OK. I'm not entirely sure what to do about the name of the library during this handoff -- it might drop the "kf5" prefix. If we don't drop the "kf5" prefix, i suppose we'll need an epoch number in the package version to make sure that upgrades happen. It's also possible that we'll need to do a similar thing with qgpgme, i guess. thanks for the reply, --dkg signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-talk
