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

Re: consolidating on gnupg2 in F10

Jeremy Katz wrote:
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:

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:

"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.



This is the same argument that exists for compatibility libraries: their existence in distributions is a disincentive for developers to port their applications.


Benjamin Lewis
Fedora Ambassador
ben lewis benl co uk

http://benl.co.uk./                                 PGP Key: 0x647E480C

"In cases of major discrepancy, it is always reality that got it wrong"
                                                        -- RFC 1118
fn:Benjamin Lewis
adr:;;;Cwmbran;;;United Kingdom
email;internet:ben lewis benl co uk

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

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