Currently, there is no dedicated tag for the gpgmepy project in the
official issue tracker, only for gpgme. Are there any objections to
adding a gpgmepy tag to the tracker and using it to keep track of
related issues? If there are concerns, we’ll need to identify an
alternative issue tracking system for this project.
In connection with this, I’ve compiled a list of issues that we need to
track:
1. Beta Version Numbering
When building gpgmepy, the version generated is 2.0.1, without a beta
suffix. I followed the documented process for incrementing the version,
but unlike with 2.0.0, the beta version is not being generated based on
the number of commits. This complicates pushing out beta releases that
include minor changes and require user feedback.
- Is this the expected behavior?
- Does a different tag need to be used?
- Do the build scripts require changes?
2. Link to Official Release Tarball
The official download page at https://gnupg.org/download/index.html
currently does not link to the gpgmepy release tarball, it only links to
GPGME. The actual release is located at
https://gnupg.org/ftp/gcrypt/gpgmepy/, but this location is not easily
discoverable.
We should consider updating the main download page to include a link to
the gpgmepy release.
3. Documentation and Example Scripts on PyPI
The release tarball includes several Python examples, which are no
longer (correctly) included in the source distribution package on PyPI.
However, this makes it difficult for users to discover or access them.
We need to discuss:
- Where to host or link these example scripts
- Whether to include references to them in the PyPI package
description or elsewhere
Let me know your thoughts on the issue tracker update, and any
suggestions for resolving the points above.
_______________________________________________
Gnupg-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-devel
