gpgmepy issues and issue tracking

[Paul Schwabauer]

Currently, there is no dedicated tag for the gpgmepy project in the 
official issue tracker, only for gpgme. Are there any objections to 
adding a gpgmepy tag to the tracker and using it to keep track of 
related issues? If there are concerns, we’ll need to identify an 
alternative issue tracking system for this project.

In connection with this, I’ve compiled a list of issues that we need to 
track:

1. Beta Version Numbering

When building gpgmepy, the version generated is 2.0.1, without a beta 
suffix. I followed the documented process for incrementing the version, 
but unlike with 2.0.0, the beta version is not being generated based on 
the number of commits. This complicates pushing out beta releases that 
include minor changes and require user feedback.

   - Is this the expected behavior?

   - Does a different tag need to be used?

   - Do the build scripts require changes?


2. Link to Official Release Tarball

The official download page at https://gnupg.org/download/index.html 
currently does not link to the gpgmepy release tarball, it only links to 
GPGME. The actual release is located at 
https://gnupg.org/ftp/gcrypt/gpgmepy/, but this location is not easily 
discoverable.

We should consider updating the main download page to include a link to 
the gpgmepy release.

3. Documentation and Example Scripts on PyPI

The release tarball includes several Python examples, which are no 
longer (correctly) included in the source distribution package on PyPI. 
However, this makes it difficult for users to discover or access them.

We need to discuss:

   - Where to host or link these example scripts

   - Whether to include references to them in the PyPI package 
description or elsewhere

Let me know your thoughts on the issue tracker update, and any 
suggestions for resolving the points above.