Bug#860571: release-notes: clarify and document GnuPG transition for stretch
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 08:51:35AM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Wed 2017-04-19 04:55:14 +0200, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote:
>
> > "The upgrade to "modern" GnuPG has been made as smooth as possible by offering
> > migration scripts.
>
> Actually, i consider the one migration script that we offer
> (migrate-pubring-from-classic-gpg) to be the least smooth part of the
> process. The most smooth part of the process has been the work upstream
> to make the upgraded gpg Just Work. I don't think that drawing
> attention to the migration script (which shouldn't be necessary for most
> people) in the release notes is a great idea.
>
> > However, beware: The upgrade comes with some subtle differences in
> > GnuPG's interface.
>
> I think this bit might just be alarmism, and i'm not sure whether we
> gain anything by it. Any major version upgrade of anything comes with
> some subtle differences, no?
>
> > See /usr/share/doc/gnupg/README.Debian for more information."
>
> I'd be fine with adding this sentence to the end of the first
> paragraph if people think that would be useful.
>
> > Rationale: I'm thinking of e.g. 'all access to secret key material is handled
> > by gpg-agent'.
>
> sure. Also, all network access is handled by dirmngr. and smartcard
> access is handled by scdaemon. and there are new and better primitives
> for automation. and we have upstream-supported python-bindings for
> libgpgme. and a lot of other changes :)
>
> but we want to keep the release notes short, right? if they're not
> short, no one will read them, in which case we might as well not write
> them in the first place, since (as you point out) all of these details
> are surely shipped in various README.Debian and NEWS files already
> anyway.
You have a point. Let's add "See /usr/share/doc/gnupg/README.Debian for more
information." to the end of the first paragraph and be done with it. I _might_
have time (and the needed access, iirc) to that myself one of those days.
Thanks for your reply, Bye,
Joost
Reply to: