[Pkg-gnupg-maint] Bug#769460: Bug#769460: gnupg2 2.1.0-1 --refresh-keys breaks with dirmngr < 2.1.0-1

[Guillem Jover]

Hi!

On Thu, 2014-11-13 at 18:29:32 -1000, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 11/13/2014 09:18 AM, Sven Hesse wrote:
> >>>From what I can figure out by googling, for gnupg 2.1, dirmngr is
> > mandatory for --refresh-keys. Without it, that operation fails.
> > 
> > And it also doesn't seem to like dirmngr < 2.1.0-1 at all, again
> > failing (with the error "IPC connect call failed").
> 
> > I hadn't thought about checking for a higher version to dirmngr
> > until dkg told me it recommends this version. Yes, with dirmngr
> > 2.1.0-1, it works. Well, apart from an apparently known and fixed
> > upstream bug that --refresh-keys fails with "Too many objects"
> > (<http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/2TGPMrmEQ8Qf4Fpiwett>,
> >  <https://bugs.g10code.com/gnupg/issue1755>).

Yeah, I also found the two issues above.

> > Not quite sure if something should be done about it. Set a hard
> > dependency on dirmngr >= 2.1.0-1 instead of a recommendation?
> > Add a conflicts dirmngr < 2.1.0-1? Or is it just a user error on
> > my part?
> 
> These are the two main approaches i've considered as well, and i think
> i'm leaning toward putting a Conflicts: dirmngr < 2.1.0~ on gnupg2, even
> though it's not exactly correct.  a hard dependency would be too much (i
> want to be able to have just gnupg2, without dirmngr at all on a pared
> down machine)

If the dependency is optional then a hard Depends would not be right,
otherwise why ship these in separate packages at all (besides for the
transitional upgrade)?

A Breaks (better than a Conflicts) should do what people would expect,
but I'm not sure why you think it's not the correct fix?

Also, I've not tried, but does a newer dirmngr work at all with an
older gnupg? Otherwise that should also be represented in the
dependencies of dirmngr.

Thanks,
Guillem