Re: Problems building gpgmepy 2.0 against gnupg 2.5.20

--===============4253344569434541590==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart50845547.1fX4Jnjsef";
 micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"

--nextPart50845547.1fX4Jnjsef
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; protected-headers="v1"
From: Meik Michalke <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Problems building gpgmepy 2.0 against gnupg 2.5.20
Date: Fri, 22 May 2026 07:49:13 +0200
Message-ID: <24719011.xjoX5AlP7R@kasidy>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
MIME-Version: 1.0

hi andreas,

Am Donnerstag, 21. Mai 2026, 18:37:19 CEST schrieb Andreas Metzler:
> why is this patch tagged with "Forwarded: not-needed"?

to be honest, i can't recall. when i saw funda's email i remembered i've se=
en=20
that issue before and discussed it with people. it could be the result of=20
gnupg 2.5 still being in development at that time and the patch was seen as=
 a=20
temporary measure, combined with noone feeling responsible to maintain the=
=20
python package back then.

i fully agree this should be fixed upstream.


viele gr=FC=DFe :: m.eik

--nextPart50845547.1fX4Jnjsef
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iJEEABYKADkWIQRs7BjQbc011HqitSUz/RvPXledgwUCag/uWRsUgAAAAAAEAA5t
YW51MiwyLjUrMS4xMiwyLDIACgkQM/0bz15XnYOtoQEAsYRBYncAPuo/cgOGCH3+
Wrdg84i4IVwkdDllch+0/r4BANBTkrDu1JY2KayTsHaf01wAczK4m13BtpZPQjaW
cBwN
=8LZc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart50845547.1fX4Jnjsef--






--===============4253344569434541590==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-devel

--===============4253344569434541590==--