This is required for >=app-crypt/gnupg-2.1.6. It has been in the tree for a while, no bugs and preliminary testing on amd64/ppc/ppc64 show that its good to go. @crypto team, shall we go ahead? Reproducible: Always
(In reply to Anthony Basile from comment #0) > This is required for >=app-crypt/gnupg-2.1.6. It has been in the tree for a > while, no bugs and preliminary testing on amd64/ppc/ppc64 show that its good > to go. > > @crypto team, shall we go ahead? > Stabilizing npth should be fine
Arch teams ... KEYWORDS="alpha amd64 arm hppa ppc ppc64 x86"
stable on ppc and ppc64
Stable for HPPA.
Stable on alpha.
stable on amd64
arm stable
this version has been keyworded for ~sparc too, so i put sparc team here for the future references.
(In reply to Mikle Kolyada from comment #8) > this version has been keyworded for ~sparc too, so i put sparc team here for > the future references. i'm stabilizing it for x86. Does sparc need to be stabilized too or can i close this bug now that x86 is done?
(In reply to Mikle Kolyada from comment #8) > this version has been keyworded for ~sparc too, so i put sparc team here for > the future references. The same for ia64
(In reply to Anthony Basile from comment #9) > (In reply to Mikle Kolyada from comment #8) > > this version has been keyworded for ~sparc too, so i put sparc team here for > > the future references. > > i'm stabilizing it for x86. Does sparc need to be stabilized too or can i > close this bug now that x86 is done? It is due to bug 546478, i think i'll take care about sparc and ia64 after at least two weeks of testing, lets keep it open.
(In reply to Mikle Kolyada from comment #11) > (In reply to Anthony Basile from comment #9) > > (In reply to Mikle Kolyada from comment #8) > > > this version has been keyworded for ~sparc too, so i put sparc team here for > > > the future references. > > > > i'm stabilizing it for x86. Does sparc need to be stabilized too or can i > > close this bug now that x86 is done? > > It is due to bug 546478, i think i'll take care about sparc and ia64 after > at least two weeks of testing, lets keep it open. Let's take care of ia64 and sparc so we can close this an unblock gnupg-2.1. We could even start on gnugp-2.1 now for arches where its ready, but its cleaner to do them all at once.
(In reply to Anthony Basile from comment #12) > (In reply to Mikle Kolyada from comment #11) > > (In reply to Anthony Basile from comment #9) > > > (In reply to Mikle Kolyada from comment #8) > > > > this version has been keyworded for ~sparc too, so i put sparc team here for > > > > the future references. > > > > > > i'm stabilizing it for x86. Does sparc need to be stabilized too or can i > > > close this bug now that x86 is done? > > > > It is due to bug 546478, i think i'll take care about sparc and ia64 after > > at least two weeks of testing, lets keep it open. > > Let's take care of ia64 and sparc so we can close this an unblock gnupg-2.1. > We could even start on gnugp-2.1 now for arches where its ready, but its > cleaner to do them all at once. strictly speaking (and maybe somewhat pedantically) I don't expect marking 2.1 stable at all; when it is considered stable from upstream 2.2 will be released and that will be the first candidate for stable branch in Gentoo as well from my point of view. 2.0 is EOL december 2017
ia64 stable
ping for sparc
(In reply to Kristian Fiskerstrand from comment #15) > ping for sparc reping for sparc, can we get this one out of the way please :)
@sparc, ping.
Obsoleting this one, gnupg 2.1.14 will require npth 1.2 which I'll file a new bug for