Naming of GnuPG
John W. Moore III
jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net
Mon Apr 21 22:22:00 CEST 2008
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> But in the end we'll either have two different gpg's (which could lead
> to a lot of problems, even security related) or one of the two will be
> phased out.
How do You reach this conclusion? "different GPG's" is far from
accurate since the Cryptographic code is identical in both the Branch &
the Trunk. The only 'difference' is the inclusion of S/MIME capability
within the 2.x Trunk. This 'feature' is used by a small minority & I
see no reason to force 'extra capability' upon those who have no desire
for it. :-\
> On the other hand,... if we actually want to spread the use of 2.x we
> should perhaps suggest the distributors to use the 2.x branch as default
> (i.e. the package named gnupg) and provide 1.4.x as something like
Default = forced, IMHO.
> What if ECC or V5 keys will finally come? Should they be backported?
The WG has discussed this and backwards compatibility [as pertains to
the mandatory cipher] has been somewhat agreed on. I am confident that
some form of backwards compatibility will be present when ECC becomes
> Any I never asked to stop security support for the 1.4.x branch, I just
> suggested to let the main development take place in 2.x and to
> explicitly state this.
At present the majority of R&D is focused upon the 2.x Trunk and
desirable features & fixes are rapidly backported into the 1.4.x Branch.
What caused You to assume different?
Timestamp: Monday 21 Apr 2008, 16:20 --400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
"One of the greatest delusions in the world
is the HOPE that the evils of this world
are to be cured by legislation"
Thomas B. Reed (1886)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.5.0-svn4748: (MingW32)
Comment: Public Key at: http://tinyurl.com/8cpho
Comment: Gossamer Spider Web of Trust: https://www.gswot.org
Comment: Homepage: http://tinyurl.com/yzhbhx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Gnupg-users