Should GnuPG 1.4.x be revived?

[Andrew Haley]

On 07/13/2010 09:54 AM, Karel Klic wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> several users of Emacs and one user of Vim complained in rhbz#574406 [1]
> that they can no longer use their editor to open and edit gpg-encrypted 
> files in Fedora 13.
> 
> The reason is that GnuPG 1.4 was deprecated after Fedora 12 release, and 
> GnuPG 2 was introduced to replace it. However, GnuPG 2 is not entirely 
> compatible with GnuPG 1.4.
> 
> I looked at GnuPG 2 and it seems that it would be very difficult to 
> modify Emacs and Vim to support it. GnuPG 2 does not allow to enter a 
> password using shell -- it needs entire terminal (as it uses ncurses 
> program pinentry-curses).
> Text editors can use only shell to send a password to GnuPG.
> 
> What about reviving GnuPG 1.4? It is maintained, secure, supported, and 
> its integration into text editors is used extensively and works well. It 
> can live alongside GnuPG 2.
> 
> What do you think? Any idea how to solve this issue?

This one really must be addressed upstream.  It's absurd that GnuPG
doesn't work with GNU Emacs.  If needs be, Richard Stallman is quite
capable of knocking the maintainers' heads together.

Andrew.