Future of GpgME python bindings on PyPi

[Ingo Klöcker]

On Dienstag, 18. März 2025 17:26:19 Mitteleuropäische Normalzeit Bernhard 
Reiter via Gnupg-devel wrote:
> Ingo, Werner,
> 
> what is the state of the python bindings and g10code's plan for it?

I cannot speak for g10 Code.

See the message you replied to for my "plan".

Regarding the state: I have no idea. When I split the repo I made sure that 
the bindings build with all versions of Python 3 provided by openSUSE 
Tumbleweed (which are all not EOL versions) and that the unit tests pass.

I think now that we have finally dropped support for Python 2 the build could 
be modernized. Patches are welcome.

> Paul and myself

Excuse my ignorance, but Paul who?

> could try to get at least the current version
> of https://git.gnupg.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=gpgmepy.git;a=summary
> up to Pypi. It seems helpful to show that the bindings still exist.

+1 from me.

> Technical: What is the python version number of current main branch?
> setup.py will generate 2.0.0b4, is this correct or should it be
>   2.0.0.dev4 or so?

In general we use beta numbering so that 2.0.0b4 looks right.

> (Background for others, Python modules' version numbering is different
> from Semver, see
> https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/discussions/versioning/)
> 
> Am Donnerstag 13 März 2025 22:28:16 schrieb Ingo Klöcker:
> > On Donnerstag, 13. März 2025 14:13:26 Mitteleuropäische Normalzeit Paul
> > 
> > Schwabauer via Gnupg-devel wrote:
> > > At present, Bernhard Reiter has access to the GPG entry.
> 
> I am acting as interims holder of the access, until a new maintainer is
> found.
>
> > > I would like to
> > > extend access to someone with write access to the |gpgmepy| repository
> > > who is interested in maintaining and uploading new versions of the
> > > bindings.
> 
> Would you grant Paul and myself write access?
> We are planning some interims maintenance.
> Are you okay with me giving Paul access to gpg's PyPi entry?
> 
> > > Ideally, I hope this entry continues to be updated, as doing
> > > so could help identify issues that might affect users who do not
> > > directly use the bindings via PyPi.
> > 
> > I'm happy to review and apply patches for gpgmepy, but I'm not motivated
> > to
> > maintain a PyPI entry because I don't use the bindings and I prefer to
> > maintain only stuff I'm using myself.
> 
> That means you are using gpgmepy, aka python3-gpg?

No, I'm not using the Python bindings. Therefore, I don't want to maintain 
them actively. I'd still review and apply patches if nobody else with write 
access to the repository does.

> We saw that the last commits all came from you. :)

I applied a few patches from others and made sure that it still builds after 
the split. It also shows that the bindings are barely alive and it gives me 
the impression that almost nobody cares.

Regards,
Ingo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/attachments/20250318/e76b4001/attachment.sig>