Re: Re: Re: Balsa and pgp !?
- From: Pawel Salek <pawsa theochem kth se>
- To: albrecht dress arcor de
- Cc: balsa-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Re: Re: Balsa and pgp !?
- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:41:54 +0000
On 11/12/2003 09:19:53 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > On 11/11/2003 11:14:45 AM, email@example.com wrote:
> > > BTW, if you want be try the "bleeding edge" gpgme version (0.4.3)
> > > with
> > > balsa, you might want to have a look at
> > >
> > > and http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124905. Note that
> > > this patch did not make it into the CVS yet.
> My patches just move from the "old" gpgme version (which has some
> serious problems, in particular with threading) to the new one.
I have just noticed that
which is the official website for gpgme advertises only 0.3 and calls
0.4.3 "unstable". libgpg-error is not mentioned at all. I am looking
forward to gpgme and libgpg packaged together in one package - possibly
allowing for static linking as long as this library has this status (I
guess I should just try to get this message through to gpgme
> The reason for the gpgme team to split gpgme into two packages (gpgme
> and libgpg-error) was (if I recall correctly) to provide common error
> handling methods and strings for gpgme and other libs/enhancements.
> Afaik gpgme is currently the only package which uses libgpg-error, so
> packagers might decide to join them into a single rpm/deb.
IMVHO, "potential" saving few hudred kb is just not worth the hassle -
myself, I would split packages physically only if there were already
several programs using given library: Occham razor should be applied
here. As far as I am concerned your patch could be commited but I am
not sure whether it will actually improve anything apart from chasing a
] [Thread Prev