>On Tuesday 02 March 2010 22:13:10 Daniel Leidert wrote:
>> Am Sonntag, den 28.02.2010, 23:20 -0500 schrieb Eric Dorland:
>> gnupg2 depends on libcurl, which
>> is of priority:optional (see our solution with gnupg). Ditto for several
>> other dependencies: libpth20, libksba8 and also Gtk+ and its
>
(I'm on maillist, no need to explicit CC)
On Tuesday 02 March 2010 22:13:10 Daniel Leidert wrote:
> > The other option could be to drop gnupg and just use gnupg2.
>
> Hm: popcon report for users of gnupg vs. gnupg2: 7:1. I don't consider
> this an option.
>
> gnupg is further of priority:standar
Am Dienstag, den 02.03.2010, 12:48 +0100 schrieb Sune Vuorela:
[..]
> With my kdepim-maint-hat on (not my mostly inactive gnupg comaintainer hat) I
> would like to see gpg moved to use alternatives, with gpg2 having a slightly
> higher priority than gpg1.
What's the reason?
> - and I would be
Am Sonntag, den 28.02.2010, 23:20 -0500 schrieb Eric Dorland:
> * Daniel Leidert (daniel.leid...@wgdd.de) wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, den 17.12.2009, 20:11 -0500 schrieb nobled:
> >
> > > There hasn't been much activity on bug #483724 - doesn't it require
> > > gnupg 1.x to convert to update-alterna
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:48, s...@vuorela.dk said:
> higher priority than gpg1. At the same time, I would like to see gpg-agent
> starting unconditionally by the xsession to give kdepim users the best
> possible crypto experience. kdepim relies on a functioning gpg-agent in order
Pretty please.
Hi Sune,
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:48, s...@vuorela.dk said:
> With my kdepim-maint-hat on (not my mostly inactive gnupg comaintainer hat) I
just want to let you known that I am working closely with the kdepim
guys (mainly with the folks from KDAB). Good to see this connection
between kdepim and
On Monday 01 March 2010 05:20:44 Eric Dorland wrote:
> * Daniel Leidert (daniel.leid...@wgdd.de) wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, den 17.12.2009, 20:11 -0500 schrieb nobled:
> > > There hasn't been much activity on bug #483724 - doesn't it require
> > > gnupg 1.x to convert to update-alternatives first? I
* Daniel Leidert (daniel.leid...@wgdd.de) wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 17.12.2009, 20:11 -0500 schrieb nobled:
>
> > There hasn't been much activity on bug #483724 - doesn't it require
> > gnupg 1.x to convert to update-alternatives first? Is that still on
> > the todo list?
>
> The suggestion to
Am Donnerstag, den 17.12.2009, 20:11 -0500 schrieb nobled:
> There hasn't been much activity on bug #483724 - doesn't it require
> gnupg 1.x to convert to update-alternatives first? Is that still on
> the todo list?
The suggestion to use update-alternatives hasn't been forgotten.
However, there a
Package: gnupg
Version: 1.4.10-2
There hasn't been much activity on bug #483724 - doesn't it require
gnupg 1.x to convert to update-alternatives first? Is that still on
the todo list?
I attached a patch; it builds and upgrades just fine.
diff -u gnupg-1.4.10/debian/rules gnupg-1.4.10/debian/rules
10 matches
Mail list logo
