Ralf, On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 09:03:31 -0500, Ido Rosen wrote: >> Given that it's not marked as stable upstream, and that it's such a >> critical core component of Arch's infrastructure, I find it >> questionable for Arch to have upgraded so soon. > > Ido, thanks for the heads up :)! > > I considered Arch's "core" as something comparable to FreeBSD's > "world". The "base system" should be apart of the Arch's philosophy to > follow upstream, even if upstream releases something as stable that is > well known as completely broken as e.g. ... ok, I resist ... ;). > > Everything in "core" has to be as stable and as proved as possible. Agreed that everything in "core" should be maximally stable. (Also, following upstream stable releases rather than unstable releases fits just fine with Arch's philosophy of following upstream releases, since unstable releases are really just poorly named release candidates, which we don't usually follow.) Given that gpg is such a crucial core component of Arch's infrastructure and that gpg 2.1 is NOT stable. Could we switch back to gnupg 2.0.x (stable release) and create a gnupg-modern or gnupg21 package to track gnupg 2.1.x, which should be installable side-by-side with gnupg stable (perhaps with gpg21 as the binary name). > > 2 Cents, > Ralf
