Bug#710140: gpgme1.0 dropped libgpgme-pth (was: Any progress?)
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 15:06:14 +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote: please try to CC 710...@bugs.debian.org in your response Am Sonntag, den 25.08.2013, 12:19 +0200 schrieb Francesco Poli: is anyone working on bug #710140 ? Is there any progress? Well, there was only libgpgme++2 affected by this upstream change and this package has seen two uploads since its own dropping of libgpgme ++-pth.so.2, which was the only binary/library linking to libgpgme-pth inside Debian. I haven't seen any report [1], that there is still an affected package(?). Could you please clarify the status of the bug? Thanks for your time! CCing release.d.o. Here is what upstream said about this change: Remove support for libgpgme-pth. As far as we know, this was never used, and GnuPG is going to use our own npth in the future. [2] Inside Debian I didn't find any reference to the usage of libgpgme-pth except for libgpgme++2, which provided the libgpgme++-pth.so.2 wrapper library, which itself wasn't used by any other Debian package (AFAIK). I'm hereby asking the release team how to proceed? The issue itself seems to have been fixed inside Debian by fixing libgpgme++2, which has already been done [3]. There might be third-party software out there using libgpgme-pth.so or libgpgme++-pth.so. However, I don't know about it; upstream doesn't know about it either (that's why they dropped it I guess) and I haven't seen any comment on this change neither on the gnupg list nor inside #710140 nor for libgpgme++2. I see two ways: (a) start a proper transition; (b) stay with the current solution and wait if someone reports an issue with it. Note, that the affected gpgme version has already hit testing (the issue was discovered late). I think if you're confident nothing in Debian ever used that library then (b) is good enough. Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#710140: gpgme1.0 dropped libgpgme-pth (was: Any progress?)
please try to CC 710...@bugs.debian.org in your response Am Sonntag, den 25.08.2013, 12:19 +0200 schrieb Francesco Poli: is anyone working on bug #710140 ? Is there any progress? Well, there was only libgpgme++2 affected by this upstream change and this package has seen two uploads since its own dropping of libgpgme ++-pth.so.2, which was the only binary/library linking to libgpgme-pth inside Debian. I haven't seen any report [1], that there is still an affected package(?). Could you please clarify the status of the bug? Thanks for your time! CCing release.d.o. Here is what upstream said about this change: Remove support for libgpgme-pth. As far as we know, this was never used, and GnuPG is going to use our own npth in the future. [2] Inside Debian I didn't find any reference to the usage of libgpgme-pth except for libgpgme++2, which provided the libgpgme++-pth.so.2 wrapper library, which itself wasn't used by any other Debian package (AFAIK). I'm hereby asking the release team how to proceed? The issue itself seems to have been fixed inside Debian by fixing libgpgme++2, which has already been done [3]. There might be third-party software out there using libgpgme-pth.so or libgpgme++-pth.so. However, I don't know about it; upstream doesn't know about it either (that's why they dropped it I guess) and I haven't seen any comment on this change neither on the gnupg list nor inside #710140 nor for libgpgme++2. I see two ways: (a) start a proper transition; (b) stay with the current solution and wait if someone reports an issue with it. Note, that the affected gpgme version has already hit testing (the issue was discovered late). [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=710140 [2] http://git.gnupg.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=gpgme.git;a=commitdiff;h=3ddf4c3d4000a9b0b52180c3aa3acf1387a193bf [3] http://packages.qa.debian.org/k/kdepimlibs/news/20130614T070347Z.html Regards, Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
