Naming of GnuPG
mkinni at calpoly.edu
Sun Apr 20 03:16:08 CEST 2008
I find it very confusing. In fact I don't know the difference between
David Shaw wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2008, at 8:16 PM, Hideki Saito wrote:
>> How will version number convention will continue, as there are 1.4.x and
>> 2.0.x lines concurrently running?
>> 1.4.x line will be evolving on its own separately from 2.0.x line,
>> Just curious, because now it is at 1.4.9 and 2.0.9...
> Not exactly evolving on its own. 1.4.x is not about to grow S/MIME
> capabilities like 2.0.x, but some changes will certainly apply to both.
>>> From user's perspective, I think 1.4.x should be called something like
>> GnuPG Standalone, instead of having two different version numbers...
>> Well, I guess some programs go like 1.4.10, 2.0.10, etc., so this may
>> not be relevant at all!
> Do people find the 1.4.x / 2.0.x thing confusing?
> Gnupg-users mailing list
> Gnupg-users at gnupg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 535 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Gnupg-users