Thanks for explaining -- I've uploaded it now. I don't think the situation is optimal, but having upstream support for multiple branches is to me acceptable motivation to mirror that situation in Debian. I worry a bit about naming in the future, though; the -v3 suffix isn't ideal when a v4 branch comes around. I don't have any good ideas on better approaches, and holding up progress is often worse.
Can you file upstream bugs for all projects in Debian that still uses v2, asking them to move to v3? It is nice to have some official wishlist report to refer to. Sometimes good discussions happen, or new information is revealed, as a result. /Simon Martin Dosch <mar...@mdosch.de> writes: > Dear Simon, > > thanks for looking into it. > > Currently the following packages depend on gopenpgp: > - go-sendxmpp > - golang-github-henrybear327-go-proton-api > - golang-github-henrybear327-proton-api-bridge > - gosop > > From those the new gosop version requires gopenpgp v3 while the others > depend on v2. > For go-sendxmpp (which I also maintain upstream) I'd like to keep > using v2 as I want to be able to backport for bookworm-backports. Once > trixie is out I think I'll do the switch to v3. I am not involved with > the other two packages. > So I'd like to keep v2 for go-sendxmpp and have v3 for now. The v2 > version is not deprecated by the release of v3 and is still maintained > upstream. > > Best regards, > Martin > > Am 09.11.2024 23:13, schrieb Simon Josefsson: >>Hi. This builds fine and packaging looks good, so I was about to upload >>this when I noticed we already have golang-github-protonmail-gopenpgp -- >>why doesn't it work to bump that package to v3 instead? What packages >>in Debian require the 2.8.x branch? Can't they be made to work with 3.x >>instead? >> >>Build pipeline: >>https://salsa.debian.org/jas/golang-github-protonmail-gopenpgp-v3/-/pipelines/760246 >> >>/Simon > >
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
