dkg
any word on this? This error is blocking me from uploading hashlink to debian. Maybe there's some versioned dependency that isn't clearly stated?
seems like this might be an issue with `hashbrown`, then. My attempt to build used `hashbrown` 0.9.1 (the version currently in debian). Looks like i've got a bit more work...
looks like this is still the case in gosop 1.0.0 :cry: That makes it difficult to use in some common distro contexts (see https://bugs.debian.org/1087749).
I'd argue that this also makes `gosop` non-compliant with `sopv 1.0`, since the `sopv` subset assumes that the basic datatypes are functioning as expected. I'll try to clarify that in...
`gosop inline-sign` appears to work if i pass it `--as=clearsigned` though.
If you're trying to prioritize the new subcommands, i recommend prioritizing `inline-verify` as it will enable using `gosop` to run the [tie-breaker script used in the recent keys.openpgp.org board election](https://gitlab.com/hagrid-keyserver/bootstrap-committee/-/merge_requests/16).
@lubux thanks for this! I've encouraged [the openpgp interop test suite to include gosop-v3](https://gitlab.com/sequoia-pgp/openpgp-interoperability-test-suite/-/issues/114). You might want to comment over there if there's a specific tag or branch label that...
if you implement `inline-sign` and `inline-verify` then that would enable the use of `gosop` in [upcoming versions of `dpkg`](https://git.hadrons.org/git/debian/dpkg/dpkg.git/commit/?h=pu/openpgp-backends&id=5cdfba5ccc32a8a49b85d9c96543c228593c3c3e)
it's been over a year since we had the conversation above. any chance that we can get a release of the v3 branch?
Sure, that'd be a great start. Just make sure that you produce an error if the user invokes `inline-sign` without `--as=clearsigned`, if that's the only form it knows how to...