[pkg-gnupg-maint] Bug#1022702: Bug#1022702: gnupg: Migrating packaging from 2.2.x to "stable" 2.3.x

[Simon Josefsson]

Jonathan McDowell <noodles at earth.li> writes:

> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 09:18:27AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Christian Kastner <ckk at debian.org> 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, would appreciate a newer version. It turns out that in versions
>> > prior to 2.3, the 'kdf-setup' option with cards does not work [1]. At
>> > least, that was the case with both Yubikeys and Nitrokeys here on my end.
>> 
>> How about uploading ametzler's branch to experimental, as a start?  It
>> is good time after the bookworm release.  I offer to help maintain GnuPG
>> in Debian.  Perhaps uploading it to mentors would be a first step, any
>> objections?
>> 
>> There are some new features in GnuPG 2.4.x that I rely on, having to
>> build it locally is a pain.
>
> +1 for an upload of 2.4 to experimental; I'm quite interested in playing
> with the support for TPM backed keys.

I cloned

https://salsa.debian.org/debian/libgpg-error/

into

https://salsa.debian.org/jas/libgpg-error/

and merged Andreas's branches into pristine-tar, upstream, and
debian/experimental, and prepared a release of 1.47-1 targetted at
experimental, and uploaded it to mentors for review:

https://mentors.debian.net/package/libgpg-error/

The package is now tested by Salsa CI/CD pipeline, which was not used
before (I did not fix the existing blhc issue):

https://salsa.debian.org/jas/libgpg-error/-/pipelines/552851

Any feedback on this libgpg-error update?

GnuPG 2.4.x requires libgpg-error 1.47, so uploading a new version of
libgpg-error would be a first step.

I'll look at doing the same for the remaining packages, if someone think
my libgpg-error approach is useful?

> 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 acceptable.

Eric, dpkg, what do you think?

I'm not familiar with what Debian policies suggest in this situation
(I'm not so sure the location of the git repository on Salsa is a clear
indication of anything - pointers?), but I offer to help with these
packages going forward.

How about uploading the package above to DELAYED/15-day so it will reach
experimental eventually?

/Simon
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 255 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-gnupg-maint/attachments/20230717/7579ae16/attachment-0001.sig>