[pkg-gnupg-maint] Retiring from the gnupg-pkg-team

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor]

Hi Christoph--

On Wed 2022-01-26 21:38:13 +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> better keep it short: I don't see my future in the maintaining work for
> GnuPG and related packages, so I'd better move on before it becomes
> mostly a burden. I've removed myself from the Uploaders: list where
> applicable (gnupg2 and libgpg-error).

I'm really sorry to see this decision, and even sorrier to know that my
own failures in time and communications management (including an
absolutely impossible e-mail backlog, and having been off of IRC for
months) have contributed to your demotivation here.  In the event that
you're interested in stepping back into the team, I would welcome that.
I really appreciate the work you've done.  No hard feelings from my side
either way.

You'd mentioned in a separate conversation (that I failed to notice, and
hence failed to respond to) an interest in having a live meeting to
discuss plans and next steps.  If you're still interested in having that
conversation, i'm game, though I realize I may be too late.

> There are some tasks open, with priority in decreasing order:
>
> The fixes for #982546 and #993578, both part of 2.2.27-3, should be
> brought to bullseye via a stable point release. That's fairly trivial.

Thanks for doing this work in unstable.  I've just pushed a
debian/bullseye branch to salsa and sent a request to the release team
to consider it: https//bugs.debian.org/1004452 -- if they approve, the
next step should be to create and push a git tag, and upload to the
bullseye suite.

> Moving forward to 2.2.33 has an obstacle in the keyserver area, requires
> little work.

I'm not sure whether "requires little work" means "needs some work" or
"needs very little work", but i assume it's significant enough that it
isn't super easy.

Can you describe the obstacles you see?

from the upstream bugtracker, it looks like there are outstanding bugs
in the 2.2 branch as well, including in 2.2.33 (the latest upstream):

   https://dev.gnupg.org/T5742

I regret that i haven't had the capacity to figure out these issues
since bullseye was released, and I welcome help in doing so.

> Switching to 2.3 might happen some day but is fairly difficult; the
> instrusive patches need major rework, and there was some fallout from
> other packages, failing autopkgtest and the like - which is why I had
> the one upload removed from experimental. It was on my list of things to
> discuss whether this would be achievable for bookworm at all.

Upstream has clearly designated the 2.3 series as an experimental
series.  I don't think it's a good idea for us to try to get the
experimental series into a stable debian release.  we did that for
2.1.18 back in debian 9, and that was with 2.1.18, which was (a) more
stable than 2.3 seems to be, and (b) also related to the impending EOL
of the 2.0 series.  It was also quite a bit of maintenance work.  I
suspect we want to keep on the 2.2 branch for bookworm.

        --dkg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-gnupg-maint/attachments/20220127/a064f8a6/attachment.sig>