Naming of GnuPG
mkinni at calpoly.edu
Sun Apr 20 06:21:19 CEST 2008
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
So theres already been a lot of arguing over this and bla bla bla.
Basicaly, for a newbie, what is the difference between the two product
lines? Should an average user go with 1.4.x or 2.x?
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, right?
|> 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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: comment line 1
Comment: comment line 2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnupg-users