On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 03:47:43PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Michael Schwendt (bugs.michael@xxxxxxx) said: > > As you can imagine, it could get ugly to relocate files like this and > > still make sure, API users still find them. gpgme03's only API/ABI user > > left is sylpheed-claws, which might catch up with main sylpheed GPGME 1.0 > > support soon. And then old gpgme03 can go for good. > > The feature enhanced development version only supports the old > library? That's funny. > Mea culpa. Sylpheed was in Core and I wanted gpgme-1.0 in Core so I patched it to use the newer gpgme and it was accepted upstream. Now sylpheed's out and we still don't have gpgme-1.0 in Core. (kmail uses it...) > Frankly, I'm not sure what the point of having both in extras is; > I would think just the main sylpheed package is enough. > claws and sylpeed are a little further apart than branches, a bit closer than an actual fork. Someone might find it worthwhile to package each one separately. Right now, I don't think anyone's picked up the main sylpheed. If someone does, I think the right thing to do is rename files in sylpheed-claws to not conflict. -Toshio
