begging for pyme name change

Daniel Kahn Gillmor dkg at
Thu Oct 20 03:18:24 CEST 2016

Hi James--

On Wed 2016-10-19 06:36:37 -0400, James Henstridge wrote:
> This hit my inbox while I was on vacation.  Sorry for not getting back
> to you sooner.

no worries, and thank you for this response!

> I obviously haven't had much time to work on my pygpgme binding, so
> I'm not going to stand in the way of anyone who wants to do better.
> If you do want to reuse the "gpgme" package name, I would appreciate
> if you could maintain API compatibility to avoid breaking code using
> my module.

this makes complete sense.

> The test suite covers most of the module's API, but in parts depends
> on the behaviour of GPG itself (in the past I've had to patch it after
> gpg upgrades).  So a good approach would be to check that it passes
> with current gpg/gpgme, and then run it against your replacement
> gpgpme package.  That should give pretty good assurance that users of
> the current library should continue to work.

I also proposed this approach as a sensible initial step for an "API
merge".  Thank you very much for having maintained a decent test suite.

> Do you need anything else from me?

I don't know enough about python module namespace handovers.  are there
signing keys associated with a given module, or some other constraints
on pypi?  If upstream does decide to take you up on this offer of a
handover, what would be the right approach to repoint the old project
pages on launchpad to the upstream documentation?


More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list