[arch-dev-public] gnupg 2.3.1-1 pulled from [testing]

Allan McRae allan at archlinux.org
Tue May 11 13:15:50 UTC 2021

On 11/5/21 10:28 pm, Lukas Fleischer via arch-dev-public wrote:
> Hi Morten,
> Thanks for the summary.
> On Mon, 10 May 2021 at 13:31:13, Morten Linderud via arch-dev-public wrote:
>> Why was this removed with no headsup? It caused a fair bit of confusion for a
>> few people and the cause of this issue isn't very clear when packaged fail to
>> verify. Ideally we should have pushed gnupg with an epoch?
> I removed the package after Jan informed me yesterday that the package
> is broken. Apologies for not making a public announcement; I should have
> send an email to our mailing lists.
> The package has two undocumented patches, one to remove a warning and
> another one that's required for pacman. I was not aware that pacman
> required a patched version of GnuPG and will work on porting/rebasing
> and documenting the patches before pushing a new build.

Our patch documentation policy is non-existent, but you'd have to assume
that revert was in the package for a reason.  Looking in the SVN history:


> When it comes to pushing with epoch, my understanding was that it is
> expected that packages break occasionally in [testing] and might get
> dropped. The recommendation for all [testing] users used to be to
> subscribe to arch-dev-public where dropped packages are (or at least
> should be) announced. Do we want to provide upgrade paths for broken
> packages in [testing]?

And announcement on arch-dev-public has been enough previously.  No need
for an epoch build.

I'd also like to query why 2.3.x was packaged at all?  From the 2.3
series announcement:

"We are pleased to announce the availability of a new GnuPG release:
version 2.3.0. This release marks the start of public testing releases
eventually leading to a new stable version 2.4."

It seems that we should stay with 2.2.x until 2.4 is released, and the
out-of-date flag should be ignored.  That will give time to fix the
fallout from this change (which is the root cause of the issue that was


More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list