Should GnuPG 1.4.x be revived?

[David Shaw]

On Jul 14, 2010, at 5:22 AM, Tomas Mraz wrote:

> On Tue, 2010-07-13 at 18:42 +0200, Karel Klic wrote: 
>> 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 am not interested in co-maintaining gnupg-1. However I do not oppose
> to revive it in koji.

Forgive my ignorance of the process, but how can I help this happen?  Aside from my own problems with the change, there are other reports of people upgrading to F13 only to find their GnuPG setup nonfunctional when their gnupg transformed into gnupg2: http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2010-June/038817.html

David