Em maio 11, 2021 9:28 Lukas Fleischer via arch-dev-public escreveu:
Hi Morten,Thanks for the summary. On Mon, 10 May 2021 at 13:31:13, Morten Linderud via arch-dev-public wrote:Why was this removed with no headsup? It caused a fair bit of confusion for a few people and the cause of this issue isn't very clear when packaged fail to verify. Ideally we should have pushed gnupg with an epoch?I removed the package after Jan informed me yesterday that the package is broken. Apologies for not making a public announcement; I should have send an email to our mailing lists. The package has two undocumented patches, one to remove a warning and another one that's required for pacman. I was not aware that pacman required a patched version of GnuPG and will work on porting/rebasing and documenting the patches before pushing a new build. When it comes to pushing with epoch, my understanding was that it is expected that packages break occasionally in [testing] and might get dropped. The recommendation for all [testing] users used to be to subscribe to arch-dev-public where dropped packages are (or at least should be) announced. Do we want to provide upgrade paths for broken packages in [testing]?
I don't mind the occasional broken package on [testing] get pulled out. I mean, we must do our best to not intentionally break it, but we can't make sure everything is working, hence we have testing. Just that, on this case, an email would've been nice. Regards, Giancarlo Razzolini
pgp0CPi8IIq41.pgp
Description: PGP signature
