Hi! On Thu, 2014-11-13 at 18:29:32 -1000, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > On 11/13/2014 09:18 AM, Sven Hesse wrote: > >>>From what I can figure out by googling, for gnupg 2.1, dirmngr is > > mandatory for --refresh-keys. Without it, that operation fails. > > > > And it also doesn't seem to like dirmngr < 2.1.0-1 at all, again > > failing (with the error "IPC connect call failed"). > > > I hadn't thought about checking for a higher version to dirmngr > > until dkg told me it recommends this version. Yes, with dirmngr > > 2.1.0-1, it works. Well, apart from an apparently known and fixed > > upstream bug that --refresh-keys fails with "Too many objects" > > (<http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/2TGPMrmEQ8Qf4Fpiwett>, > > <https://bugs.g10code.com/gnupg/issue1755>).
Yeah, I also found the two issues above. > > Not quite sure if something should be done about it. Set a hard > > dependency on dirmngr >= 2.1.0-1 instead of a recommendation? > > Add a conflicts dirmngr < 2.1.0-1? Or is it just a user error on > > my part? > > These are the two main approaches i've considered as well, and i think > i'm leaning toward putting a Conflicts: dirmngr < 2.1.0~ on gnupg2, even > though it's not exactly correct. a hard dependency would be too much (i > want to be able to have just gnupg2, without dirmngr at all on a pared > down machine) If the dependency is optional then a hard Depends would not be right, otherwise why ship these in separate packages at all (besides for the transitional upgrade)? A Breaks (better than a Conflicts) should do what people would expect, but I'm not sure why you think it's not the correct fix? Also, I've not tried, but does a newer dirmngr work at all with an older gnupg? Otherwise that should also be represented in the dependencies of dirmngr. Thanks, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
