Should GnuPG 1.4.x be revived?

[David Shaw]

On Jul 21, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Brian C. Lane wrote:

>>> 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

> 
> My understanding is that someone needs to update the gnupg package and
> run it through the package review process again since it was deprecated,
> not just orphaned.

How does this happen (i.e. who is the someone)?  I'm happy to help in any way I can, but I'm not currently a Fedora contributor.  I'm just an upstream GnuPG guy.

> gnupg2 needs to not obsolete gnupg in its .spec file
> 
> And I would also prefer it if gnupg2 didn't overload the gnupg binaries,
> keeping things in line with upstream which meant for gnupg 1.x and 2.x
> to be installed in parallel.
> 
> That brings up an additional problem in that now we have had users of
> f13 using gpg as gpg2, so a switch back might cause some friction -- but
> I think it is the right way to do things.

I agree.  It might cause friction, but of course the status quo is causing friction for some pre-f13 people using gpg when they upgrade to f13.

David