Re: Should GnuPG 1.4.x be revived?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 07/21/2010 07:44 AM, David Shaw wrote:
> 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
> 

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.

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.

- -- 
Brian C. Lane <bcl@xxxxxxxxxx>
Red Hat / Port Orchard, WA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBTEcWGRF+jBaO/jp/AQLlFAf/ZdyjIoz0RVlct5MtqfOuRcs6GBoqIWgr
4kziAk4RFCqdCw17K0yVpwEmmQPwQkbhUoniK3sJnforTSs1YETTQ0IZunEYIA20
aIUVdTmg7bobpQuOn6FWr18Hg+nytVWdqGw6BElxwVoQlOZhuW9cFzjLeTFgy9ff
Pnf9jM7HpqcKT6sRanuvDrrIMWCrxqOG3/ku0X3TZso7uND9JFeofdFZzFnQavd3
LkANaJ2g73b/qf7MXlV0/YXGgOXYpLaZCLpGHVaF9voWPYI0yKvRrb1U12Q8Tbkq
dLlG3ubwPgSCsdFjqwysgThL6dRCefiyEpzNeOcAkP8AX2/XaBLq3A==
=3G7d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux