Re: Re: Re: Balsa and pgp !?

[Pawel Salek <pawsa theochem kth se>]

On 11/12/2003 09:19:53 AM, albrecht.dress@arcor.de wrote:
> > On 11/11/2003 11:14:45 AM, albrecht.dress@arcor.de 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
> > >  
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/balsa-list/2003-October/msg00078.html
> > > and http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124905. Note that
> afaik
> > > 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
http://www.gnupg.org/(en)/download/index.html#gpgme

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  
developers).
 
> 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  
moving target.

Pawel