On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 12:48 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > Steve Grubb wrote: > > On Friday 18 July 2008 09:11:21 Rex Dieter wrote: > >> Bill Nottingham wrote: > >>> For a really long time now, we've shipped both gnupg and gnupg2 > >>> in Fedora. In fact, in Fedora 9 a relatively standard install will > >>> get both installed. > >>> It appears a good number of these can be ported to gnupg2, if not > >>> all of them. Should we wire up a feature page? > >> Imo, yes, it's a worthy goal to get these ported so that at least gnupg(1) > >> doesn't land in any default install. > >> > >> fyi, here's my inquiry upstrem on whether it's possible or a good idea to > >> try dropping gnupg1: > >> http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2008-July/024485.html > >> > >> answer: probably not a good idea. > > > > Why did you come to that conclusion? We don't support IDEA and Suse did > > mention that they have switched to only GPG2. The only caution is around > > gpg-agent. > > based on Werner Koch's response: > http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2008-July/024490.html > > "You should don't remove gnupg-1 from a distribution..." He also says you should ship BIND 8 and 9. And there are people that say you should ship KDE 3.x and KDE 4 desktops. We should cut the cruft and onvert what we ship to use gnupg2. Otherwise, the fact that there are two will persist forever. Jeremy -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
