On 2023-09-24 Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
> * Does it make sense to have keyboxd as separate package that is
> depended on by gnupg? i.e. is other software than gnupg itselft
> supposed to use it?
Nevermind, I misread debian/control (gnupg metapackage vs gpg binary).
Should hit NEW soon.
On 2023-09-24 Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On 2023-09-22 Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> [...]
> > What do y'all think about uploading this into debian's experimental
> > repository for wider testing and consideration?
> I intend to work on that. (Both GIT and uploading).
Hello,
I have updated the
On 2023-09-22 Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
[...]
> What do y'all think about uploading this into debian's experimental
> repository for wider testing and consideration?
I intend to work on that. (Both GIT and uploading).
cu Andreas
--
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other
On Wed 2023-09-20 13:30:23 +0900, NIIBE Yutaka wrote:
> NIIBE Yutaka wrote:
>> I backported and pushed my changes to tmp-gniibe-v2.4.
>>
>> https://salsa.debian.org/gniibe/gnupg2
>>
>> This is Debian compatible version of GnuPG 2.4.1.
>
> Today, I merged 2.4.3 from Andreas Metzler's
Hello,
NIIBE Yutaka wrote:
> I backported and pushed my changes to tmp-gniibe-v2.4.
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/gniibe/gnupg2
>
> This is Debian compatible version of GnuPG 2.4.1.
Today, I merged 2.4.3 from Andreas Metzler's tmp-ametzler-v2.4 branch.
This is Debian compatible version of
NIIBE Yutaka wrote:
> I'm going to backport the improvement to my branch of tmp-gniibe-v2.4
> for Debian.
I backported and pushed my changes to tmp-gniibe-v2.4.
https://salsa.debian.org/gniibe/gnupg2
This is Debian compatible version of GnuPG 2.4.1.
--
NIIBE Yutaka wrote:
> I was wrong. The ticket for agent_cache_housekeeping is:
>
> https://dev.gnupg.org/T3829
>
> It was introduced because of some risk keeping passphrase.
>
> I'd like to consider to improve the implementation of cache and
> expiration, not using handle_tick.
In the
NIIBE Yutaka wrote:
> Besides, in my opinion, the agent_cache_housekeeping function makes less
> sense (it's totally OK to only check the expiration on its use). Having
> expired entries on memory is no problem at all, than running gpg-agent
> process periodically; memory is cheap but buttery
NIIBE Yutaka wrote:
> Based on your work of tmp-ametzler-v2.4 branch, I created my own fork.
>
> My hope is that the migration from 2.4 won't introduce (much) surprise
> to Debian users.
>
>https://salsa.debian.org/gniibe/gnupg2/-/tree/tmp-gniibe-v2.4
>
> This work of mine is:
>
> - Keep
Hello,
Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On 2023-04-30 Andreas Metzler wrote:
> [...]
>> However I have updated the GIT branches to 2.4.1 today.
>
> Now at 2.4.3.
Based on your work of tmp-ametzler-v2.4 branch, I created my own fork.
My hope is that the migration from 2.4 won't introduce (much)
On 2023-08-15 Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
[...]
> The libgpg-error packaging Andreas as produced for experimental looks to
> me like it should probably be uploaded to unstable directly, as that's
> useful work regardless of what version of GnuPG is in the archive.
[...]
I will do that.
cu
Hi all--
Many apologies for the delayed response on this thread, and my recent
delays on GnuPG in debian generally. My time has been lacking here, and
my relationship with GnuPG upsteam is sadly strained, though i wish it
were not.
I really appreciate the work that other folks have put in here
On 2023-04-30 Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
> However I have updated the GIT branches to 2.4.1 today.
Now at 2.4.3.
cu Andreas
--
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
so grateful to you.'
`I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'
signature.asc
Description:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 05:16:47PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Jonathan McDowell writes:
> > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 09:18:27AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >> Christian Kastner writes:
> >> > On 2023-06-12 17:01, Sune Stolborg Vuorela wrote:
> >> >> Any chance you can give Andreas a go
On 2023-07-17 Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Jonathan McDowell
[...]
>> I haven't seen dkg or Eric weigh in on this thread, but they've had a
>> few months to object and given gnupg lives under the debian/ tree in
>> salsa I'd take that as an indication that an upload to experimental
>> would be
Jonathan McDowell writes:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 09:18:27AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Christian Kastner writes:
>> > On 2023-06-12 17:01, Sune Stolborg Vuorela wrote:
>> >> Any chance you can give Andreas a go ahead to push a newer Gnupg2
>> >> to at least
>> >> experimental, or
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 09:18:27AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Christian Kastner writes:
> > On 2023-06-12 17:01, Sune Stolborg Vuorela wrote:
> >> Any chance you can give Andreas a go ahead to push a newer Gnupg2 to at
> >> least
> >> experimental, or preferably unstable ?
> >
> > I, too,
Christian Kastner writes:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On 2023-06-12 17:01, Sune Stolborg Vuorela wrote:
>> Any chance you can give Andreas a go ahead to push a newer Gnupg2 to at
>> least
>> experimental, or preferably unstable ?
>
> I, too, would appreciate a newer version. It turns out that in versions
Hi Daniel,
On 2023-06-12 17:01, Sune Stolborg Vuorela wrote:
> Any chance you can give Andreas a go ahead to push a newer Gnupg2 to at least
> experimental, or preferably unstable ?
I, too, would appreciate a newer version. It turns out that in versions
prior to 2.3, the 'kdf-setup' option with
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 1:27:14 PM CEST Andreas Metzler wrote:
> I do not indend to hijack/adopt gnupg2, so I am very reluctant to upload
> without some kind of go from Daniel or Eric. (Even to experimental.)
Hi Daniel
Any chance you can give Andreas a go ahead to push a newer Gnupg2 to at
> I do not indend to hijack/adopt gnupg2, so I am very reluctant to upload
> without some kind of go from Daniel or Eric. (Even to experimental.)
>
> However I have updated the GIT branches to 2.4.1 today.
Thanks for your hard work Andreas! Those packages do indeed solve issues for me
and bring
On 2023-04-27 Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > I have spent a little bit of effort on packaging 2.4.0. I have pushed
> > this to salsa (sans tags) into 3 temporary branches that could be
[...]
> Hi,
> What do you think about uploading these to experimental, to allow
> testing?
> I have built your
> I have spent a little bit of effort on packaging 2.4.0. I have pushed
> this to salsa (sans tags) into 3 temporary branches that could be
> fast-forwarded:
> tmp-ametzler-pristine-tar --ff-> pristine-tar
> tmp-ametzler-upstream --ff-> upstream
> tmp-ametzler-v2.4 --ff->
Hello,
I was also interested in a 2.3.x branch into Debian packaging. What is the
policy
for upgrading the Debian GnuPG package? What are the blockers?
thanks for your work and if you can provide more context.
Control: retitle -1 gnupg: Migrating packaging from 2.2.x to "stable" 2.4.x
On 2022-10-24 Hideki Yamane wrote:
> Package: gnupg
> Severity: wishlist
> Dear Maintainer,
> I've noticed that now upstream says 2.3 branch is "stable" series,
> not development ones since 2.3.5.
[...]
Hello,
I
Package: gnupg
Severity: wishlist
Dear Maintainer,
I've noticed that now upstream says 2.3 branch is "stable" series,
not development ones since 2.3.5.
https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-announce/2022q2/000472.html (2.3.5)
26 matches
Mail list logo
