Devuan bug report logs - #895
devuan-keyring: recommends gnupg; can we have a minimal devuan-archive-keyring?

Package: devuan-keyring; Maintainer for devuan-keyring is Devuan Developers <devuan-dev@lists.dyne.org>; Source for devuan-keyring is src:devuan-keyring.

Reported by: Andrew Bower <andrew@bower.uk>

Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 18:40:01 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Found in version devuan-keyring/2022.09.04

Fixed in version 2025.07.30

Done: Mark Hindley <mark@hindley.org.uk>

Full log

🔗 View this message in rfc822 format

X-Loop: owner@bugs.devuan.org
Subject: bug#895: [devuan-dev] bug#895: devuan-keyring: recommends gnupg; can we have a minimal devuan-archive-keyring?
Reply-To: Mark Hindley <mark@hindley.org.uk>, 895@bugs.devuan.org
Resent-From: Mark Hindley <mark@hindley.org.uk>
Resent-To: devuan-bugs@lists.dyne.org
Resent-CC: Devuan Developers <devuan-dev@lists.dyne.org>
X-Loop: owner@bugs.devuan.org
Resent-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 06:52:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.895.B895.17507478721887@bugs.devuan.org>
Resent-Sender: owner@bugs.devuan.org
X-Devuan-PR-Message: followup 895
X-Devuan-PR-Package: devuan-keyring
X-Devuan-PR-Keywords: 
References: <aFme9e9cwYRunCZy@romsey.ab8.net> <aFmkwlb7_Kk5gzjy@hindley.org.uk> <aFmuEdLhzzyzxCSf@shenstone.ab8.net> <aFme9e9cwYRunCZy@romsey.ab8.net>
X-Devuan-PR-Source: devuan-keyring
Received: via spool by 895-submit@bugs.devuan.org id=B895.17507478721887
          (code B ref 895); Tue, 24 Jun 2025 06:52:01 +0000
Received: (at 895) by bugs.devuan.org; 24 Jun 2025 06:51:12 +0000
Delivered-To: bugs@devuan.org
Received: from email.devuan.org [2a01:4f9:fff1:13::5fd9:f9e4]
	by doc.devuan.org with IMAP (fetchmail-6.4.16)
	for <debbugs@localhost> (single-drop); Tue, 24 Jun 2025 06:51:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from email.devuan.org
	by email.devuan.org with LMTP
	id AKZzO4tKWmhzWAAAmSBk0A
	(envelope-from <mark@hindley.org.uk>)
	for <bugs@devuan.org>; Tue, 24 Jun 2025 06:49:47 +0000
Received: by email.devuan.org (Postfix, from userid 109)
	id D89793E1; Tue, 24 Jun 2025 06:49:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on email.devuan.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED,
	RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE,RDNS_DYNAMIC,SPF_PASS,
	T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=193.36.131.86; helo=mx.hindley.org.uk; envelope-from=mark@hindley.org.uk; receiver=<UNKNOWN> 
Received: from mx.hindley.org.uk (193-36-131-86.cfwn.uk [193.36.131.86])
	by email.devuan.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA8721D
	for <895@bugs.devuan.org>; Tue, 24 Jun 2025 06:49:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from hindley.org.uk (apollo.hindleynet [192.168.1.3])
	by mx.hindley.org.uk (Postfix) with SMTP id 7373111C;
	Tue, 24 Jun 2025 07:49:45 +0100 (BST)
Received: (nullmailer pid 20477 invoked by uid 1000);
	Tue, 24 Jun 2025 06:49:45 -0000
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2025 07:49:44 +0100
From: Mark Hindley <mark@hindley.org.uk>
To: Andrew Bower <andrew@bower.uk>
Cc: 895@bugs.devuan.org
Message-ID: <aFpKiOYjlLLl4ISR@hindley.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <aFmuEdLhzzyzxCSf@shenstone.ab8.net>

On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 08:42:09PM +0100, Andrew Bower wrote:
> It might be worth reviewing if even the Recommends is warranted though -
> slapping gnupg on everyone's system by default seems like a significant
> difference from Debian.

We could downgrade it to Suggests.

> I get the impression there are debates about OpenPGP implementations in
> Debian. I don't have a horse in that race but it might give the edge to
> dropping the relationship.

Yes, or adding other alternatives.

Mark

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.

Devuan bug report logs - #895 devuan-keyring: recommends gnupg; can we have a minimal devuan-archive-keyring?

Devuan bug report logs - #895
devuan-keyring: recommends gnupg; can we have a minimal devuan-archive-keyring?