GPA `improvements'

[Miguel Coca]

--jRHKVT23PllUwdXP
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 13:27:40 -0500, Francis J. A. Pinteric wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 18:02:03 +0100
> Miguel Coca <e970095@zipi.fi.upm.es> wrote:
>=20
> > > As for compiling the CVS, I had problems.
> >=20
> > Wow, that looks like too many changes. For me it works out of the box, =
and I
> > think it should for you too :-) All your problems sound like
> > autoconf/automake not working properly. I think our autogen.sh requires
> > automake 1.6, are you using it?
>=20
> Yup! automake 1.6.3 and autoconf 2.53.=20

Weird,

> > If you are, I would be interested it the output you get from autogen.sh.
>=20
> Ok, I'll attach it to this message. I presume the list mail server doesn't
> automatically delete attachments. If you prefer that I send it to you
> privately let me know and this will be the last one I send to the list.

In my experience, there is no problem sending attachments to the list, as
long as you stay within obvious size limits (i.e. short files and patches
are not a problem, but for anything over a few KB's, private mail is
preferred).

But in this case, it looks like you forgot to actually attach it :-)

> >  Gpgme (the library) does not support key
> > signatures at this moment, so we can't use them in GPA. However, that's
> > being worked on right now, and I'll add it to GPA again as soon as
> > possible.
>=20
> In 0.4.3 you sort of `faked it' by calling "gpg --with-colons --list-sigs"
> and parsed the output. Sort of a kludge, eh?=20

Not really, that's what gpgme will do. It just provides a nice abstraction
layer around building the gpg command line, invoking the gpg program, etc.
Mostly what gpapa did (actually, gpapa used large chunks of an earlier
version of gpgme to call gnupg portably), but it's actively supported and
kept up to date with newer gnupg releases.

We still call gpg directly in a couple of places (key backups, for example),
but only for relatively simple things, when gpgme does not provide something
and there is no need to parse the results or the status-fd.

> > Just that. Having gpgme 0.3.12 and gnupg 1.2.1 is highly recommended, a=
nd
> > may be needed for some features (for example, deleting keys did not wor=
k in
> > gnupg < 1.2).
>=20
> I've got both those versions as well. I'm pretty much up to date. My gtk2
> verion is 2.0.2-4 (for Redhat 7.3) if that helps at all. I'm not going to
> upgrade that unless I have to because too many other things may break.=20

No, that's not really important. I've gone through several GTK+2 upgrades
without any problems.

> Anyway, don't let these things distract you too much. I'll try and figure
> out what went wrong on my end.=20

Ok, but since all the tests I've done are on a Debian machine, I want to be
sure it compiles on other distributions.

Regards,
--=20
Miguel Coca                                         e970095@zipi.fi.upm.es
PGP Key 0x27FC3CA8                         http://zipi.fi.upm.es/~e970095/

--jRHKVT23PllUwdXP
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE90AMejE3Htif8PKgRAkEiAKCMMNbG86By/b8vXa/wsM1PvOu2sQCgnDDg
1D3HQZl0I0abcbDuHNzpyug=
=DDEX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--jRHKVT23PllUwdXP--