[From nobody Wed Sep  2 10:03:07 2026
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 31 Aug 2026 14:43:24 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
 (2024-03-25) on buxtehude.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.1 required=4.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00,
 DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FROMDEVELOPER,
 MD5_SHA1_SUM,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,USER_IN_DKIM_WELCOMELIST
 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
 version=4.0.1-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.0000 Tokens: new, 9; hammy, 147; neutral, 37; spammy, 0.
 spammytokens: hammytokens:0.000-+--XDebbugsCc,
 0.000-+--X-Debbugs-Cc, 
 0.000-+--Hx-spam-relays-external:36ff, 0.000-+--H*r:36ff,
 0.000-+--H*RT:sk:master.
Return-path: <guillem@master.debian.org>
Received: from master.debian.org ([2001:41b8:202:deb:216:36ff:fe40:4001]:38242)
 by buxtehude.debian.org with esmtps
 (TLS1.3:ECDHE_SECP256R1__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256)
 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from <guillem@master.debian.org>)
 id 1x13EJ-007Wob-2o for submit@bugs.debian.org;
 Mon, 31 Aug 2026 14:43:24 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=debian.org; 
 s=smtpauto.master;
 h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Subject:To:From:
 Date:Reply-To:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:
 In-Reply-To:References; bh=uTX2nMtTWThw2z/FYTeM+eGmsWANd/iekMCDSdDfsBY=; b=RB
 EWRdsd40aL9aMdoFwOpn1Skj+IHSUihvnlBa/LrtUbDC5G9If5AYnAa+b4jSZ2FRr2s/fcgUT4xWa
 Pu5xh4wEZOsoikJVymEOFzox/sqVCoOU4WtngwoW28I+bxgGuct95HqSOrGTfE00VUYEWVw+ZW+W7
 6OPtJItPPbRg7kYOmbrb5OInHsb9ewNtwzlJDaIhTP/Z693+RiAFkKdZ3EuzawFi4sRzUHL+WNCfx
 TXIOH4h4LzEWafIo1bbvRrkLeIXHpT2EByGs2bXdmqu6tvusYLUQAi6paeZ+3fvuSupoTv325Tkj6
 Uz+xUSBE3jGa/N3d0KcFkkKEkMbUfsXQ==;
Received: from guillem by master.debian.org with local (Exim 4.96)
 (envelope-from <guillem@master.debian.org>) id 1x13EG-00FSt0-24
 for submit@bugs.debian.org; Mon, 31 Aug 2026 14:43:20 +0000
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 16:43:19 +0200
From: Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: rust-rsop: rsopv binary package has disappeared
Message-ID: <apWTB69O3GB3lime@thunder.hadrons.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Source: rust-rsop
Source-Version: 0.11.0-1
Severity: important
X-Debbugs-Cc: Simon Quigley <tsimonq2@debian.org>

Hi!

The rust-rsop package used to generate two binary packages, rsop and
rsopv. With the latest upload, the sopv variant is no longer built,
due to the dropping of the explicit debian/control from the debcargo
repo:

  https://salsa.debian.org/rust-team/debcargo-conf/-/commit/a89a06183bd77eacb43272adb9ecef26578417af

The rsopv interface is no longer provided, not even in the rsop package,
contrary to what its description says.

I assume this was an oversight? Reintroducing the rsopv package would be
great (while updating the package description), so that we have more
options for minimal systems where a verification only OpenPGP interface
is enough.

Currently dpkg has explicit support for rsopv, and (weak) dependencies on
it. If for whatever reason the package is not going to come back, I'd be
interested to know, to then remove support for it (although I'd find
that a bit unfortunate :).

Thanks,
Guillem
]