enigmail with pgp 2.2.4

[Dmitry Gudkov]

thank you for being patient with super noobs like me
hope you will find some time to build those packages
in the meantime I'll keep on learning GnuPG
by the way distro-packaged 2.1.11 in /usr/bin/gpg2 and freshly compiled
2.2.4 in /usr/local/bin/gpg live peacefully together on my ubuntu 16.04
machine to date
however I don't get to do much with it so far except for encrypt/decrypt
correspondence and files, edit/export/import keys to other machines,
backup, etc.

regards,
Dmitry

On 05/03/2018 14:53, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 25/02/18 15:45, Dmitry Gudkov wrote:> i thought you forgot about me)
> 
> It's all a matter of free time and willingness. If I have 5 minutes and
> see a question I can quickly answer, I might do that. But if an answer
> takes a lot of time, it will have to wait.
> 
>> I have a confession to make, too. Not only I'm not a developer, but I'm
>> a fresh convert from os to linux).
> 
> Ah, welcome :-). Using software that was not provided by or specifically
> for your distribution is an advanced topic, so it's not surprising you
> might feel uncertain what to do at times.
> 
>> Correct me if I'm wrong but the best conclusion I could make for your
>> letter is that unless I locally build a Debian package myself (the
>> epitome of thoroughness!), I can't be 100% sure everything works as it
>> should.
> 
> Well, building Debian packages is the best way to integrate into the
> Ubuntu ecosystem. But that doesn't mean it's the only good solution.
> Installing stuff into /usr/local is a time-honored Unix tradition. Many
> distributions will respect those traditions. I'm merely indicating that
> I'm not sure I'm giving 100% correct advice. But if I'm right, it should
> just work fine.
> 
>> I guess it must
>> be boring for you to dedicate more of your time on this, but I can't
>> help but asking to provide one for me in hope that there are some more
>> inexperienced GNU/Linux users on this mailing list who might be very
>> much interested in building the epitome of thoroughness themselves but
>> just too shy to ask for guidance)
> 
> It's not boring, it's time-consuming, that's the problem. I will not
> build packages for Ubuntu 16.04. As a matter of fact, I think interest
> in 16.04 will drop a bit in one and a half month :-). But if I can find
> the time for it, I might have a look at building those equivs-packages
> so you can use your local installation in /usr/local instead of the
> packaged version.
> 
> But I haven't found that time yet.
> 
> I did notice an old post on gnupg-devel that was replied to just now,
> where Phil Pennock says he's packaging GnuPG 2.2 for Ubuntu 16.04:
> <https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2017-October/033211.html>
> 
> But he's explicitly staying out of the way of the 2.1.11 offered by
> Ubuntu. That makes it more difficult to use for the end user. It seems
> wise when the system has 2.0 installed. But I think there's something to
> be said for going a bit further in the case of 16.04 and install a
> recent 2.2 for usage by the whole system. The system already has a 2.1+
> version, so anything that depends on gpg2 being 2.0 will already be
> broken; you can't break it any further anyway. And 2.1.11 has known bugs
> and deficiencies, and the fixes have not been backported by Ubuntu. It
> seems nothing but a win to replace it with 2.2.
> 
> Peter.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/attachments/20180305/6c207bcb/attachment.sig>