I sent a message to gnupg-devel about this issue as it will probably hit more people now that the keys used are expired :-(

Oh,.. it is even worse. The conflict keys expired 2019-01-06 so they are actually expired right now.

I don't know why @BenM closed this bug given that he mentioned that the qt part is yet not solved.

We've run into the testTofuConflict failure on NixOS. gpgme v1.12, gnupg v2.2.12.

Though apparently resolved back in May, this is what ultimately led to T4191 and was thus only properly resolved quite recently.

The Python portion of this is done, the tests will now create a key with an expiration a few years shy of the 2106 end date (NYE 2099).

Not to mention making sure we test for a time after the end of the old 32-bit clock.

Ben: We need to use a faked system time thing to make those tests more stable.

Hi,

The patch works. There's 1 more issue that's been standing for a bit longer already,
and that you might want to tackle at the same time: there's no argp.h header on Mac.

On Linux it is only a problem with the headers (e.g. the -dev) Package as the

That's actually an orthogonal issue, and one that's probably easier to rectify as any
changes only become apparent when dependent software is being built.

libraries have different soversions

This is also the case on Mac, but the link library doesn't have a soversion. It's
called libqgpgme.so or libqgpgme.dylib .
There is of course the option to rename just that symlink. A bit of a hack, but one
that's relevant only during the link step, when dependent software is being rebuilt.

How does MacPorts handle this in general? IMO this is not a (q)gpgme(++)
specific problem as you will have this problem with each ABI break.

MacPorts does many things like they're done on more traditional *n*x desktops, i.e.
install libraries in a central, shared location (--prefix=/opt/local by default).
There is nothing specific it does to handle ABI breaks; they can hold up an upgrade,
or a patch is applied at some level, or a conflict is registered. Sadly there is no
central way to create -dev packages, which doesn't help here.

E.g. when we
break the ABI in QGpgME libqt5qgpgme.dylib may be incompatible and we would need
a new name.

That I don't see. The problem here isn't so much the ABI break compared to the
version shipped by kdepimlibs4, but the fact that an incompatible Qt version is used.
So no, a SOVERSION=8 upgrade doesn't impose a library name change. Cf. Poppler and
its Qt backends; they're called libpoppler-qt4 and libpoppler-qt5 .
An alternative would be to do like QCA: install the library wherever Qt's own
libraries are installed. That automatically resolves the conflict with the old
version included with kdepimlibs4, and might be less disruptive for existing
distribution packages.

It's not only the build system but the code using QGpgME / GpgME++ will be more
complex as they would need to have feature checks for both the QGpgME version

What I had in mind was a build system that refuses to do a mismatching build of QpgME
X.Y.Z against GpgME++ that's not X.Y.Z . If you don't do runtime checks there's no
guarantee anyway beyond what the dynamic linker can give, I think. Distributions can
build QpgME and only bundle the QpgME bits, and then install that against any GpgME
install. I've done that for a bit with QpgME 1.7.x against QpgME++ 1.8.0, and didn't
run into any issues.
You could probably even argue that people would be less likely to try this kind of
things if the build system gave off a big hint that they really shouldn't be doing
that. It's not like it's particularly difficult to install only QpgME, after all.

Hi,

thanks for your feedback.

Regarding library suffix in the cmake config files, sorry about that I forgot
MacOS ;-) can you please test the attached patch (macos-cmake-config-fix.diff)
that reintroduces libsuffix to distinguish between macos and linux?

QGpgME builds libqgpme, preserving the same name as the library that used to
be built by kdepimlibs4.

There was a discussion after the 1.7.0 release about this. In summary: I agree
that we should have changed the name to avoid this conflicts, but we think that
it's now too late to do that as we want to avoid additional hassle for packages.
On Linux it is only a problem with the headers (e.g. the -dev) Package as the
libraries have different soversions. On Windows it's not a problem at all as the
Application ships the library it requires.

Is this something that might be considered upstream, e.g. for 1.8.1, possibly as
a build option? I realise this may not be something that has already come up on
Linux desktops but it's likely to do so in other distribution systems; it is
blocking us in MacPorts at this moment, for instance.

How does MacPorts handle this in general? IMO this is not a (q)gpgme(++)
specific problem as you will have this problem with each ABI break. E.g. when we
break the ABI in QGpgME libqt5qgpgme.dylib may be incompatible and we would need
a new name.

On Linux we have soversion and on Windows and MacOS imo usally the libraries are
shipped with the Application. But on MacPorts how does this work?

It will probably a bit more complex to maintain the buildsystem because you'd
want to exclude builds against mismatching qgpgme versions, but when done that
should be all, no?

It's not only the build system but the code using QGpgME / GpgME++ will be more
complex as they would need to have feature checks for both the QGpgME version
and the GPGME version to determine which features are available. This was a huge
hassle in the old days and one of the reasons we wanted to move them closer
together so that you can rely on the API once you have a minimum required version.

See e.g.:
https://git.gnupg.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=gpgme.git;a=commitdiff;h=433bb8e84b2d1e50b5c5b9f7f2006b60cd7d7785
That removed lots of these feature checks.

D403: 936_macos-cmake-config-fix.diff

Aside from the required build system changes we wil run into problems evaluating
bug reports.

It will probably a bit more complex to maintain the buildsystem because you'd
want to exclude builds against mismatching qgpgme versions, but when done that
should be all, no?

It's just a bit a pity that you have to build all of the cpp bindings again if
you just want to build the Qt bindings.