[pkg-gnupg-maint] Bug#822974: Bug#822974: backport for jessie

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor]

On Fri 2016-04-29 07:07:50 -0700, Daniel Pocock wrote:

> Please consider providing a gnupg2 2.1.x backport in jessie-backports or
> comment if it is not feasible.
>
> I came across some comments about it here:
>
> https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2015-June/053772.html

I have no plans to make a 2.1.x backport to debian jessie until the
transition work that is currently in unstable.

As i've written on #debian-gnupg on irc.oftc.net:

15:40 < dkg> there are major changes coming in the gnupg packaging -- if
             you look in experimental, you'll see that /usr/bin/gpg (and
             the gnupg package itself) is provided now from the 2.1.x
             sources
15:41 < dkg> i don't want to make a backport until those changes land in
             testing
15:42 < dkg> because i don't want to be stuck in a situation where the
             2.1.x packages don't propagate to testing, and we have to
             maintain a separate branch in jessie-backports concurrently
             without those fixes.
15:43 < dkg> i won't object to someone else stepping up to maintain a
             jessie-backports version of 2.1.x, but please be aware that
             the packaging is likely to change pretty radically in
             unstable soon, once i'm convinced that the experimental
             packages have had enough people look at them.
15:43 < xxx> so we are getting rid of 1.4.x entirely?
15:43 < dkg> nope, it'll live on as gnupg1
15:43 < xxx> but APT will use 2.1.x then?
15:44 < dkg> apt won't use /usr/bin/gpg or the gnupg package at all, if
             i can help it -- they should really only be using gpgv
15:44 < dkg> (but yes, they'll use gpgv from the 2.1.x branch)
15:45 < xxx> that's nice
15:45 < dkg> indeed, i hope it is :)
15:48 < xxx> so how much time would stepping up and maintaining a
             backport consume for "someone"?
16:01 < dkg> probably depends on the person -- if the goal is to
             maintain a "gnupg2" binary package (that is, to keep 2.1.x
             building gnupg2), that will diverge pretty heavily from the
             version you can expect in unstable.
16:01 < dkg> so you'd need to avoid several of those changes.

I hope this helps to explain the situation.

      --dkg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 948 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-gnupg-maint/attachments/20160523/7908ea05/attachment.sig>