On Tue 2019-01-22 14:44:50 -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> I'm not sure we should remove *both* enigmail and thunderbird from
> jessie. I understand there are problems with the a.m.o version, but then
> that's somewhat outside of scope of LTS. It would seem rather unfair for
> users of thunderbird
On Tue, 2019-01-22 at 14:44 -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
[...]
> Right now I'm leaning towards completely dropping support from Enigmail
> in jessie, since the changes required are too far ranging to be
> comfortable.
I agree with you. All the options are bad, but this seems to be the
least bad.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 02:44:50PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>
> I'm not sure we should remove *both* enigmail and thunderbird from
> jessie. I understand there are problems with the a.m.o version, but then
[..]
> Right now I'm leaning towards completely dropping support from Enigmail
> in j
On 2018-12-20 14:30:49, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> fwiw, i agree with jmm that encouraging users to upgrade to stable is
> the best outcome here. The question is, what are we doing to the folks
> who (for whatever reason) can't make that switch.
>
> On Thu 2018-12-20 17:01:30 +0100, Moritz Mühle
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 02:30:49PM -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> we're not talking about "all kinds of core libraries" -- we're talking
> about a very selected subset.
Which are used by core system services like systemd, which makes them
core libraries.
> > EOLing enigmail seems the only se
On 2018-12-20 14:30:49, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> fwiw, i agree with jmm that encouraging users to upgrade to stable is
> the best outcome here. The question is, what are we doing to the folks
> who (for whatever reason) can't make that switch.
>
> On Thu 2018-12-20 17:01:30 +0100, Moritz Mühle
fwiw, i agree with jmm that encouraging users to upgrade to stable is
the best outcome here. The question is, what are we doing to the folks
who (for whatever reason) can't make that switch.
On Thu 2018-12-20 17:01:30 +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> If suddenly all kinds of core libraries are g
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 05:03:26PM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> I mostly worried that you didnt test all dependent packages and that we
> essentially might break those when trying to support a package no
> customer has expressed need for. But then I also suppose such breakage
> could be fixed...
On 2018-12-19 21:22:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Hi Antoine,
>
> On 19/12/2018 18:25, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> On 2018-12-19 17:03:26, Holger Levsen wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:40:07AM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> I've now also re-read this thread (for the 2nd time
Hi Antoine,
On 19/12/2018 18:25, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2018-12-19 17:03:26, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:40:07AM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> [...]
>> I've now also re-read this thread (for the 2nd time today..) and first
>> I'd like to notice that all the concerns
On 2018-12-19 17:03:26, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:40:07AM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> [...]
> I've now also re-read this thread (for the 2nd time today..) and first
> I'd like to notice that all the concerns were only brought up in the
> last week, so it was definitly ri
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:40:07AM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
[...]
> Both Emilio and Daniel supported the idea of pushing the GnuPG 2.1
> backport. So I did that and spent most of my LTS time for december
> working on the GnuPG 2.1 upload.
>
> I was just about to finalize the upload, based on
On 2018-12-19 16:21:46, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi Antoine, dkg,
>
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 01:09:39PM +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 09:08:42AM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> > However given the impact of these library updates, I was wondering
>> > if we have c
13 matches
Mail list logo
