Re: how to package gpgp again

2002-04-28 Thread Oohara Yuuma
On 27 Apr 2002 08:49:06 +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The problem is that I hear gpgp is dead upstream. So unless > someone (you?) takes up upstream maintainership, maybe it is still > better for its users to migrate to seahorse. They can do this at their > own pace, of cours

Re: how to package gpgp again

2002-04-27 Thread Oohara Yuuma
On 27 Apr 2002 08:49:06 +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The problem is that I hear gpgp is dead upstream. So unless > someone (you?) takes up upstream maintainership, maybe it is still > better for its users to migrate to seahorse. They can do this at their > own pace, of cour

Re: how to package gpgp again

2002-04-27 Thread christophe barbé
On Sun, Apr 28, 2002 at 01:26:39AM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote: > On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 10:58:06 -0400, > christophe barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Last time I checked (It was not yesterday), gpa was better than > > seahorse. > I tested gpa 0.4.2-2 and it took more than 1 hour to start. > I don't

Re: how to package gpgp again

2002-04-27 Thread christophe barbé
On Sun, Apr 28, 2002 at 01:26:39AM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote: > On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 10:58:06 -0400, > christophe barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Last time I checked (It was not yesterday), gpa was better than > > seahorse. > I tested gpa 0.4.2-2 and it took more than 1 hour to start. > I don'

Re: how to package gpgp again

2002-04-27 Thread Oohara Yuuma
On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 10:58:06 -0400, christophe barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Last time I checked (It was not yesterday), gpa was better than > seahorse. I tested gpa 0.4.2-2 and it took more than 1 hour to start. I don't know about 0.4.3-2. -- Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian develope

Re: how to package gpgp again

2002-04-27 Thread christophe barbé
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 08:49:06AM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote: > > I admit seahorse is better than gpgp, but gpgp seems rather popular > > according to popcon, so I want to package gpgp again. > > The problem is that I hear gpgp is dead upstream. So unless > someone (you?) takes up upstream mai

Re: how to package gpgp again

2002-04-27 Thread Oohara Yuuma
On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 10:58:06 -0400, christophe barbé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Last time I checked (It was not yesterday), gpa was better than > seahorse. I tested gpa 0.4.2-2 and it took more than 1 hour to start. I don't know about 0.4.3-2. -- Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian develop

Re: how to package gpgp again

2002-04-27 Thread christophe barbé
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 08:49:06AM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote: > > I admit seahorse is better than gpgp, but gpgp seems rather popular > > according to popcon, so I want to package gpgp again. > > The problem is that I hear gpgp is dead upstream. So unless > someone (you?) takes up upstream ma

Re: how to package gpgp again

2002-04-27 Thread Robert Bihlmeyer
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * gpgp should be in main (gpgp contains no crypto code --- all crypto things > are done by calling gpg) So gpgp should be where gnupg is. Today that's main, you're right on that. > I admit seahorse is better than gpgp, but gpgp seems rather popular >

Re: how to package gpgp again

2002-04-27 Thread Robert Bihlmeyer
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * gpgp should be in main (gpgp contains no crypto code --- all crypto things > are done by calling gpg) So gpgp should be where gnupg is. Today that's main, you're right on that. > I admit seahorse is better than gpgp, but gpgp seems rather popular >