On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 12:14:07PM +0100, Edd Barrett wrote:
> I've just started a mini-bulk on anything which {RUN,BUILD}_DEPENDS on
> gnupg. I'll post any failures as they come in.
This completed without any failures (that was with security/gnupg2
removed entirely to ensure nothing could use
On Sat, Sep 19 2020, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> The duplicity patch which set gpg_binary from the default None to gpg2
> was removed, should that actually be changed to set it to gpg?
>
> - --gpg_binary = None
> -+gpg_binary = 'gpg2'
This setting is used to override the defaults in
The duplicity patch which set gpg_binary from the default None to gpg2 was
removed, should that actually be changed to set it to gpg?
- --gpg_binary = None
-+gpg_binary = 'gpg2'
Otherwise reads ok to me.
--
Sent from a phone, apologies for poor formatting.
On 19 September 2020 12:14:20 Edd
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 01:16:21AM +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> If we want this for the next release, here's a diff that moves
> security/gnupg2 to security/gnupg and adapts consumers.
Thanks for doing this! I've just started a mini-bulk on anything which
{RUN,BUILD}_DEPENDS on
On Sun, Sep 06 2020, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 06 2020, Edd Barrett wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 06, 2020 at 01:34:42PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>>> > We will also need to add a quirk...
>>>
>>> Not needed, the stem is the same so they are both considered as long as
On Sun, 06 Sep 2020 00:02:38 +0200
Jeremie Courreges-Anglas :
> On Sat, Sep 05 2020, Solène Rapenne wrote:
> > Le 2020-09-05 13:25, Edd Barrett a écrit :
> >> Hi all,
> >> We've been talking about trying to remove security/gnupg (i.e. gpg
> >> version 1) for some time, and the recent plist
On 2020/09/11 09:31, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 09:26:06AM +0200, Solene Rapenne wrote:
> > On Sun, 06 Sep 2020 00:02:38 +0200
> > Jeremie Courreges-Anglas :
> >
> > > On Sat, Sep 05 2020, Solène Rapenne wrote:
> > > > Le 2020-09-05 13:25, Edd Barrett a écrit :
> > > >>
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 09:26:06AM +0200, Solene Rapenne wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Sep 2020 00:02:38 +0200
> Jeremie Courreges-Anglas :
>
> > On Sat, Sep 05 2020, Solène Rapenne wrote:
> > > Le 2020-09-05 13:25, Edd Barrett a écrit :
> > >> Hi all,
> > >> We've been talking about trying to remove
On 9/5/20 1:25 PM, Edd Barrett wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We've been talking about trying to remove security/gnupg (i.e. gpg
> version 1) for some time, and the recent plist clash has given me the
> kick up the butt I needed to look more seriously at this.
>
> Below is a list of things that still
On Sun, Sep 06 2020, Edd Barrett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Sep 06, 2020 at 02:33:12AM +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
>> This doesn't catch everything.
>
> Yeah, I realised shortly after. I think it's because the [^2] part of
> the glob doesn't catch cases where the line ends after
On Sun, Sep 06 2020, Edd Barrett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Sep 06, 2020 at 01:34:42PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>> > We will also need to add a quirk...
>>
>> Not needed, the stem is the same so they are both considered as long as
>> a matching pkgpath is declared.
>
> Great. That simplifies
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 06, 2020 at 01:34:42PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > We will also need to add a quirk...
>
> Not needed, the stem is the same so they are both considered as long as
> a matching pkgpath is declared.
Great. That simplifies things a bit.
> I think we should just replace
On 2020/09/06 11:26, Edd Barrett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Sep 06, 2020 at 02:33:12AM +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> > This doesn't catch everything.
>
> Yeah, I realised shortly after. I think it's because the [^2] part of
> the glob doesn't catch cases where the line ends after
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 06, 2020 at 02:33:12AM +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> This doesn't catch everything.
Yeah, I realised shortly after. I think it's because the [^2] part of
the glob doesn't catch cases where the line ends after `security/gnupg`.
I spent a little time trying to figure out
On Sun, Sep 06, 2020 at 02:33:12AM +0200, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 05 2020, Edd Barrett wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > We've been talking about trying to remove security/gnupg (i.e. gpg
> > version 1) for some time, and the recent plist clash has given me the
> > kick up the butt
On 9/5/20 8:33 PM, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 05 2020, Edd Barrett wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We've been talking about trying to remove security/gnupg (i.e. gpg
>> version 1) for some time, and the recent plist clash has given me the
>> kick up the butt I needed to look more
On Sat, Sep 05 2020, Edd Barrett wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We've been talking about trying to remove security/gnupg (i.e. gpg
> version 1) for some time, and the recent plist clash has given me the
> kick up the butt I needed to look more seriously at this.
>
> Below is a list of things that still
On Sat, Sep 05 2020, Solène Rapenne wrote:
> Le 2020-09-05 13:25, Edd Barrett a écrit :
>> Hi all,
>> We've been talking about trying to remove security/gnupg (i.e. gpg
>> version 1) for some time, and the recent plist clash has given me the
>> kick up the butt I needed to look more seriously at
On 9/5/20 7:25 AM, Edd Barrett wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> No maintainer:
> mail/pine-pgp-filters
> security/py-gnupg
> security/py-gnupg,python3
> security/clamav-unofficial-sigs
>
I've been using an updated py3-gnupg in my local tree.
I've attached the git diff which sets the
Le 2020-09-05 13:25, Edd Barrett a écrit :
Hi all,
We've been talking about trying to remove security/gnupg (i.e. gpg
version 1) for some time, and the recent plist clash has given me the
kick up the butt I needed to look more seriously at this.
Below is a list of things that still depend upon
On Sat, Sep 05, 2020 at 02:08:31PM +0200, Sebastien Marie wrote:
> So just switching the dependency should be enough
In fact, jca@ has just sent me a diff to make security/gnupg2 install
its binaries without the 2 suffix (so gpg instead of gpg2).
I'm going to try applying this, removing
On Sat, Sep 05, 2020 at 12:25:51PM +0100, Edd Barrett wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We've been talking about trying to remove security/gnupg (i.e. gpg
> version 1) for some time, and the recent plist clash has given me the
> kick up the butt I needed to look more seriously at this.
>
> Below is a list of
22 matches
Mail list logo
