Anarcat, thanks for continuing to push on this, it's really appreciated!
On Thu 2018-11-22 10:54:41 -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> I was hoping publishing the test package would trigger some feedback; it
> didn't. While I can do some tests of my own, the surface area of this is
> so vast that it
On 2018-11-22 17:32:09, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 10:54:41AM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> On 2018-11-20 12:55:16, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> > All that said, i don't think that upgrading jessie to the versions of
>> > these libraries that are in debian stretch will break
On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 10:54:41AM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2018-11-20 12:55:16, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> > All that said, i don't think that upgrading jessie to the versions of
> > these libraries that are in debian stretch will break jessie. I do wish
> > we had more substantive au
On 2018-11-20 12:55:16, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> All that said, i don't think that upgrading jessie to the versions of
> these libraries that are in debian stretch will break jessie. I do wish
> we had more substantive autopkgtest-style coverage in jessie, so that we
> could feel more confiden
On Tue 2018-11-20 15:47:00 +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-11-20 at 10:28 -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> On 2018-11-20 15:19:45, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2018-11-19 at 15:48 -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> [...]
>> > > I think this is overengineered. I still haven't heard exac
On Tue, 2018-11-20 at 10:28 -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2018-11-20 15:19:45, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Mon, 2018-11-19 at 15:48 -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
[...]
> > > I think this is overengineered. I still haven't heard exactly what the
> > > problem would be with upgrading those libra
On 2018-11-20 15:19:45, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-11-19 at 15:48 -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> On 2018-11-13 22:02:45, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2018-11-13 at 12:31 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> > > On Mon 2018-11-12 15:16:39 -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
On Mon, 2018-11-19 at 15:48 -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2018-11-13 22:02:45, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-11-13 at 12:31 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> > > On Mon 2018-11-12 15:16:39 -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> > >
> > > > * libgcrypt20 (part of GnuTLS, 1.6 -> 1.7)
> > >
On 2018-11-19 22:32:17, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> I can't stress thos often enough. Jessie-backports doesn't exist anymore.
> They are unsupported for months and I do really hope that they get archived
> soon.
I'm sorry I implied we might use backports for this. I didn't mean to: I
mean we should t
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 03:43:59PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> and I haven't
> heard any negative (or positive) feedback on the build, so I'm going
> under the assertion that it doesn't cause too much trouble.
Realistically that means that noone tested them.
Cheers,
Moritz
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2018-11-13 22:02:45, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-11-13 at 12:31 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> >> On Mon 2018-11-12 15:16:39 -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> >>
> >> > * libgcrypt20 (part of GnuTLS, 1.6 -> 1.7)
> >>
> >> libgcrypt i
On 2018-11-13 22:02:45, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-11-13 at 12:31 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> On Mon 2018-11-12 15:16:39 -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>>
>> > * libgcrypt20 (part of GnuTLS, 1.6 -> 1.7)
>>
>> libgcrypt is not a part of GnuTLS. GnuTLS has used nettle instead of
Hi,
As I'm running out of time to work on this problem for the month, I
figured I would at least try to wrap up the conversation we had on the
topic here so we can find a solution to move forward on.
The current situation is that I have a backport of GnuPG 2.1 available
for testing here:
htt
On Tue, 2018-11-13 at 12:31 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Mon 2018-11-12 15:16:39 -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>
> > * libgcrypt20 (part of GnuTLS, 1.6 -> 1.7)
>
> libgcrypt is not a part of GnuTLS. GnuTLS has used nettle instead of
> gcrypt for years. gcrypt is more properly "part o
On Mon 2018-11-12 15:16:39 -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> * libgcrypt20 (part of GnuTLS, 1.6 -> 1.7)
libgcrypt is not a part of GnuTLS. GnuTLS has used nettle instead of
gcrypt for years. gcrypt is more properly "part of GnuPG" than anything
else.
basically, all of these libraries are gnupg
On 2018-11-13 18:41:47, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> I can think of two options:
>
> 1) Ship them in a private dir (e.g. /usr/lib/gnupg2/), and link them to those
> libs. Then ld should add an RPATH, otherwise an LD_LIBRARY_PATH hack could be
> used.
>
> 2) Statically link the libraries into gp
On 13/11/2018 17:43, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2018-11-13 13:24:39, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> On Mon, 2018-11-12 at 15:16 -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> So I've been looking at Enigmail again, after a long journey helping
>>> people in stable getting that stuff fixed. It's pretty obv
On 2018-11-13 13:24:39, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-11-12 at 15:16 -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> So I've been looking at Enigmail again, after a long journey helping
>> people in stable getting that stuff fixed. It's pretty obvious there's
>> no way to upload that without firs
On Mon, 2018-11-12 at 15:16 -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So I've been looking at Enigmail again, after a long journey helping
> people in stable getting that stuff fixed. It's pretty obvious there's
> no way to upload that without first doing a GnuPG 2.1 backport into
> jessie.
>
> Tha
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So I've been looking at Enigmail again, after a long journey helping
> people in stable getting that stuff fixed. It's pretty obvious there's
> no way to upload that without first doing a GnuPG 2.1 backport into
> jessie.
>
> That, it turns o
Hi,
So I've been looking at Enigmail again, after a long journey helping
people in stable getting that stuff fixed. It's pretty obvious there's
no way to upload that without first doing a GnuPG 2.1 backport into
jessie.
That, it turns out, requires *four* more source package
backports. Fortunatel
21 matches
Mail list logo
