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

Re: the way to enigmail: gnupg 2.1 backport considerations



On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 10:54:41AM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> On 2018-11-20 12:55:16, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> > All that said, i don't think that upgrading jessie to the versions of
> > these libraries that are in debian stretch will break jessie.  I do wish
> > we had more substantive autopkgtest-style coverage in jessie, so that we
> > could feel more confident about this, but i don't think we currently do.
> So this goes back to the question of whether we should test this
> further, either ourselves or through this list's participants.
 
more tests are always good. sorry, i'm a bit lost here: are (source and binary)
packages  available for testing?

> What's the best way to resolve this?

(by now) everybody participating in this thread has said that this is a
sensible approach forward. so I think another call for testing is the
next step, maybe on debian-user too?


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
       PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: