[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: consolidating on gnupg2 in F10



On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 12:48 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Steve Grubb wrote:
> > On Friday 18 July 2008 09:11:21 Rex Dieter wrote:
> >> Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >>> For a really long time now, we've shipped both gnupg and gnupg2
> >>> in Fedora. In fact, in Fedora 9 a relatively standard install will
> >>> get both installed.
> >>> It appears a good number of these can be ported to gnupg2, if not
> >>> all of them. Should we wire up a feature page?
> >> Imo, yes, it's a worthy goal to get these ported so that at least gnupg(1)
> >> doesn't land in any default install.
> >>
> >> fyi, here's my inquiry upstrem on whether it's possible or a good idea to
> >> try dropping gnupg1:
> >> http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2008-July/024485.html
> >>
> >> answer: probably not a good idea.
> > 
> > Why did you come to that conclusion? We don't support IDEA and Suse did 
> > mention that they have switched to only GPG2. The only caution is around 
> > gpg-agent.
> 
> based on Werner Koch's response:
> http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2008-July/024490.html
> 
> "You should don't remove gnupg-1 from a distribution..."

He also says you should ship BIND 8 and 9.  And there are people that
say you should ship KDE 3.x and KDE 4 desktops.

We should cut the cruft and onvert what we ship to use gnupg2.
Otherwise, the fact that there are two will persist forever.

Jeremy


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]