From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adolf Belka To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] gnupg: Update to 2.2.27 Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2021 14:09:44 +0200 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7120675983181256213==" List-Id: --===============7120675983181256213== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Michael, On 06/04/2021 12:38, Michael Tremer wrote: > Hello, >=20 > Thank you for working on this. >=20 >> On 4 Apr 2021, at 12:10, Adolf Belka wrote: >> >> This is the patch series for the update of gnupg from the legacy 1.4 >> branch to the LTS 2.2 branch. >> >> Required for build and use are >> libassuan New requirement for 2.2 branch - change from addon to Core prog= ram >> libksba New requirement for 2.2 branch - new install >> npth New requirement for 2.2 branch - new install >> >> pinentry not required for build. Is required for some uses of gnupg such >> as when providing passwords. This does not apply the the IPFire use cases. >> >> Trying to update gpgme with the old 1.4 branch gnupg resulted in various >> fails. Was looking for files that were not present. >> Updating gpgme with 2.2 branch of gnupg was successful. >> >> The iso created from the build of all the changes from this patch series >> was installed in my vm testbed. Keys successfully imported. Package lists >> successfully read and put into pakfire wui page. Several addons installed >> successfully. Packages had signatures successfully verified. >> My testing indicates that gnupg 2.2 branch is successfully working in >> IPFire in place of the 1.4 branch >=20 > That sounds very good. I was surprised how well it went after I had sorted out all the additional de= pendency programs. >=20 > What is the migration path? Can the new version read the old key store or d= o we have to do something about this first? My testing was only for installing from scratch using the iso. That seemed to= work fine and successfully imported the keys, created the list of available = packages and then successfully verified the addons I installed. As this is a big change it definitely would be good to have other people test= out that what I found is generally applicable. For migration with the Core Update, I don't know what might be needed. I was = not able to test this out on my vm testbed. If the changes are merged then I, and others, could do an upgrade to unstable= which should highlight if there are any problems with the migration for a Co= re Update. I don't have any other ideas beyond that for testing out the migration path r= equired. Regards, Adolf. >=20 > -Michael >=20 >> >> >> Adolf Belka (5): >> gnupg: Update to 2.2.27 >> libassuan: Convert from addon to core program >> libksba: required for gnupg 2.2 series >> npth: required for gnupg 2.2 series >> gpgme: Update to 1.15.1 >> >> config/rootfiles/common/gnupg | 107 ++++++++++-- >> .../rootfiles/{packages =3D> common}/libassuan | 0 >> config/rootfiles/common/libksba | 9 + >> config/rootfiles/common/npth | 7 + >> config/rootfiles/packages/gpgme | 162 +++++++++++++++++- >> lfs/gnupg | 4 +- >> lfs/gpgme | 6 +- >> lfs/libassuan | 6 - >> lfs/libksba | 79 +++++++++ >> lfs/npth | 79 +++++++++ >> make.sh | 2 + >> 11 files changed, 434 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) >> rename config/rootfiles/{packages =3D> common}/libassuan (100%) >> create mode 100644 config/rootfiles/common/libksba >> create mode 100644 config/rootfiles/common/npth >> create mode 100644 lfs/libksba >> create mode 100644 lfs/npth >> >> --=20 >> 2.31.1 >> >=20 --===============7120675983181256213==--