proposed removal of Enigmail from jessie/LTS
On 2018-12-19 16:21:46, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi Antoine, dkg,
>
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 01:09:39PM +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 09:08:42AM +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> > However given the impact of these library updates, I was wondering
>> > if we have considered to just mark enigmail as EOL in jessie? Obviously if we
>> > can keep supporting stuff we should do that, but as you say these library
>> > updates affect important unrelated rdeps so we need to weigh that.
>> +1
>
> I've read this thread multiple times now and came to conclude that
> Moritz and Emilio are probably right here, also because - afaics - noone
> besides you two have tested the packages on
> https://people.debian.org/~anarcat/debian/jessie-lts/ and also mostly
> concerning whether they fix enigmail, not so much for subtile breakage
> in other parts. (Or did I miss something?)
>
> Then I also looked at the packages LTS customers (=sponsors) are using
> and noted neither enigmail nor libgcrypt20 are among those, so while I
> agree breaking/not fixing/declaring EOL of enigmail will be sad for our
> jessie users, I also think that most web users are using modern desktops
> now (though of course those still on jessie are bitten) and that keeping
> jessie stable should have highest priority.
>
> Of course, more tests could probably convince me again in the other
> direction.. ;)
So I appreciate finally getting feedback on this proposal, but I'll just
note that I've been personnally working on this project for over three
months now, and it's the first time the proposal to remove Enigmail from
jessie has been explicitely supported instead of the gnupg
backport. That is, as far as I can remember and find through archive
searches.
I've brought up the topic of how to deal with breakage on Enigmail
numerous times on this forum. The first thread starts here, in
September:
https://lists.debian.org/871s9fps8e.fsf@curie.anarc.at
I even explicitely proposed to remove enigmail from jessie here:
https://lists.debian.org/87pnwzngcy.fsf@curie.anarc.at
There was no explicit support for that idea and limited feedback on the
other proposals I brought up. After helping dkg with the stretch
package, thinking that would would eventually benefit jessie as well (or
ultimately even stretch-LTS), I waited another month and brought up the
proposals again:
https://lists.debian.org/87pnvra144.fsf@curie.anarc.at
Both Emilio and Daniel supported the idea of pushing the GnuPG 2.1
backport. So I did that and spent most of my LTS time for december
working on the GnuPG 2.1 upload.
I was just about to finalize the upload, based on Emilio's review of the
patchset, when I read your message. Now I'm at a loss at what to do with
this project.
Obviously, it would be easy to upload a new debian-security-support
package to declare Enigmail dead. But it would have been a much more
efficient use of our time if we would have decided that back in
september when I first brought up the idea.
I find this situation rather frustrating, to say the least. I understand
people don't always have time to read all messages and respond promptly
to proposals, but I think I've given that one plenty of time, so it's a
little difficult to just drop everything now, after so much work has
been done to finalize that backport.
A.
--
Le pouvoir n'est pas à conquérir, il est à détruire
- Jean-François Brient, de la servitude moderne
Reply to: