[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Reopen a request for gpgme in Core



On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 21:48:44 -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:

> > Among the things to examine are:
> >
> >  * Dependencies on GPGME 0.4.x: gpa, elmo
> >  * Dependencies on GPGME 0.3.x: cryptplug, seahorse, sylpheed-claws
> >    (seahorse is very old, but pcomptom said maybe he will continue it)
> >  * In which way or whether cryptplug uses gpgsm?
> >  * Is cryptplug of any use in FC3?
>
> AFAIK cryptplug is no longer of use  in FC3  kmail in kde 3.3 has the 
> functionality added i think mutt may have used it to sign mails also  but i 
> dont think  there was ever a client patch to take advantage it.
 
Good. Then the only dependency on gpgme 0.3.x is Sylpheed-claws (well,
and Sylpheed in Fedora Core for people like me who rebuild it with
GPGME privately).

Has anyone any objections against rebuilding GPGME 0.3.x without
support for GPGSM? That would enable us to get rid of the dependency
on newpg (via /usr/bin/gpgsm). It would also make libksba 0.4.x
obsolete, and upgradable to libksba 0.9.x as needed by GNUPG 2. The
build dependency on gpgsm could be dropped anyway, and the
install-time dependency would no longer be needed. Does any package
exist which would use GPGME 0.3.x + GPGSM and is not included in
Extras?

Left would be GPGME 0.4.x as used by elmo and gpa. Neither one uses
GPGSM either, so GPGME 0.4.x could also be rebuilt without gpgsm
dependency. Then, both gpa and elmo build against GPGME 1.0.x, so no
urgent need to keep GPGME 0.4.x, not even as gpgme04 package.

Still to check: gpa and elmo build with GPGME 1.0.x, but do they work
correctly?

Attachment: pgp00035.pgp
Description: PGP signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]