Should GnuPG 1.4.x be revived?

Karel Klic kklic at redhat.com
Tue Jul 13 16:42:16 UTC 2010


On 07/13/2010 06:03 PM, Brian C. Lane wrote:
> This is why I'm so surprised to see gpg be deprecated in f13. Upstream
> is supporting both and the manpage even indicates that the binary should
> be gpg2.
>
> I don't see any reason for it to have been removed in f13, and am
> willing to help maintain it.

We could also ask original maintainers of gnupg, if they are willing to 
co-maintain it.

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/gnupg

> I've been a pgp and gpg user since the
> early 90's, I attempted to port pgp to the Atari ST (unsuccessfully I
> should note :) ) at one time.
>
> - --
> Brian C. Lane<bcl at redhat.com>
> Red Hat / Port Orchard, WA
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQEVAwUBTDyONxF+jBaO/jp/AQIIbwf/dP0Vs740iJUke+0nAYXE3OO0Gwe6SHFm
> kfMdGUAwNrRTIwSiwMkGrQNtOQN7XlbG2fkBVcyt4SWgRBJPDlRIXZgWRwjxfw7l
> mptTwmhshhuwQjGS0mfaZJ1X1WF6voYwLxoOIMDEMB9d8+SP+4vFq22obkEqjU3w
> RJUpSW2XJR9JCv6O8yQbBK2PbC++LIM4lJcmifBFLh1u2KjsuyejBMz4iL/ieCam
> aO9fexC2y38hq9FPmQeyQdtUaak+z8vIEA6ZgHFqLxuCMUl3nlDE70kq4CnDDnz4
> 9gIhfWxWSc0lSQdW7UzU1eD9YNSNz7Q1IU4jx+aMcsbIi2eTQjdc5w==
> =Vdl1
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the devel mailing list