Should GnuPG 1.4.x be revived?
dwmw2 at infradead.org
Tue Jul 13 09:14:51 UTC 2010
On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 10:54 +0200, Karel Klic wrote:
> several users of Emacs and one user of Vim complained in rhbz#574406 
> 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?
It's a lot harder to add IDEA support for GnuPG 2, too. Although
hopefully that will no longer be an issue within a year or two.
More information about the devel