Michele Calgaro via trinity-devel wrote:

Hi Emanoil, see here https://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/show_bug.cgi?id=2830 Feel free to prepare PR for that :-)

Cheers Michele

Thank you, I now remember - it belongs to tdeutils.

I have some questions Michele - why 14.2 ? I was hoping 14.1 is the candidate. - and as it is upstream in gnupg, how should I proceed. I recall there was something in git to track the original source.

I do not think I fully qualify for creating PR for this particular case. Can you advise?

thanks

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messages on the web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting

Dne st 11. března 2020 Michele Calgaro via trinity-devel napsal(a):

On 2020/03/11 03:48 PM, deloptes wrote:

...

Michele Calgaro via trinity-devel wrote:

...

Hi Emanoil, see here https://bugs.pearsoncomputing.net/show_bug.cgi?id=2830 Feel free to prepare PR for that :-)

Cheers Michele

Thank you, I now remember - it belongs to tdeutils.

I have some questions Michele - why 14.2 ? I was hoping 14.1 is the candidate. - and as it is upstream in gnupg, how should I proceed. I recall there was something in git to track the original source.

I do not think I fully qualify for creating PR for this particular case. Can you advise?

thanks

When we selected the list of thing to finalize R14.1.0 we tried to go by priority, functionality and required dev time. We had a long list of things and bug and we had to make choices. So pinentry-tqt went into R14.2.0 list ultimately . If you can summarize what work is require for this bug and you want to work on it, we may be able to squeeze it in for R14.1.0. Keep in mind we want to release R14.1.0 before the end of the year. Cheers Michele

Hi both,

in any case, we will need to make a decision about pinentry-tqt. As I understand, the code is now part of the upstream pinentry. Here are some ways to deal with this:

1. Add a separate git repository that will follow upstream pinentry but only pinentry-tqt will be built during build in TDE. There would have to be an occasional merge with upstream, but we should have our own branches, our own tags, out own issues tracking... just as we do with libtdevnc and libvnc upstream.

2. Add the pinentry-tqt code to tdeutils, as you mentioned. But this would mean manual synchronization between pinentry upstream and tdeutils.

3. Add only a mirror of pinentry git repository but not as part of the TDE umbrella. And the packages will be built completely outside the other TDE packages.

What is your opinion?

Cheers

Hi I dropped a mail to Damien Goutte-Gattat. Seems to be responsible for pinentry.

Here is the essence of what he says

...

Was it merged in gnupg?

Yes, I merged it into the main branch back in November 2017, it is part of the last pinentry release (1.1.0, published in December 2017).

...

How we can setup our repository to follow the main branch?

If you have changes to pinentry-tqt (e.g. fixes for bugs reported by TDE users), the “standard” workflow would be to clone the pinentry main branch from git.gnupg.org, do your development on a dedicated branch, them send the patches to gnupg-devel. From there I (or another GnuPG developer) would take care of merging them.

[...]

I see that the TDE project provides its own packages for the most common distributions, so it would make sense for you to provide a binary package for pinentry-tqt as well. Make a binary package that provides *only* pinentry-tqt (disable all other pinentries at the configure step), and provide it along with the other TDE packages.

As mentioned in the bug 2830 I found out that actually I need to have pinentry-tqt and pinentry-tty, so that it does not conflict with dependencies from debian. the pinentry-tty is required for console only applications.

The code can be obtained via

git clone git://git.gnupg.org/pinentry.git

because it was merged already. All the rest in the bug 2830 is correct.

In the last note from 20.10.2018 I mean, when building TDE I do on each package sed -i "s/pinentry-qt/pinentry-tqt/" $(TGTDIR)"/debian/control" because of mentioned dependencies.

So in my opinion what needs to be done is to take the decision how we deal with upstream pinentry and pimp all the packages that depend on pinentry-qt (so to speak do a switch to pinentry-tqt). Of course it needs to be done for each distribution. I have added only the debian part, but it does not seem to be that much of work - mostly decision and setup.

When the decision is taken, I would love to do my part, especially now with most of the other topics I had closed and COVID19 knocking on the door, we may at once have much more time for development if the internet remains intact of course :)

regards

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messages on the web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting

Michele Calgaro via trinity-devel wrote:

Hi Slavek, based on this and emails from Emanoil, I think we should go for option 1 and we include a pinentry-tqt-trinity as part of tde. Cheers Michele

Is it expected that I do something here?

regards

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messages on the web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting