Which GPG version?

Daniel Kahn Gillmor dkg at fifthhorseman.net
Mon Aug 1 22:37:23 CEST 2016

On Mon 2016-08-01 15:12:21 -0400, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 01/08/16 19:53, Johan Wevers wrote:
>> It does not. If you want to be able to read pgp 2.x encoded archives you'd
>> better go for 1.4.
> Incidentally, for this use case I'd personally recommend to use 2.1 for
> everything except accessing those ancient archives, and just use 1.4 for that,
> if that is something that works for you.
>> I think the interface of 2.0 is more stable so if you use scripting, a 2.1
>> update might break it.
> I'm sure you know, but the OP might not: in this case, you're scripting in a way
> not approved by the GnuPG devs, i.e., using interfaces meant for humans instead
> of machines.
> 2.1 even has some functions that 2.0 does not with regard to easy scripting
> (--quick-add-[stuff] and friends). I don't know whether there is stuff that 2.0
> can do that 2.1 can't at the moment, though (which is different from stability,
> it's feature completeness).

fwiw, i agree with Peter that 2.1 appears at the moment to be better for
all use cases except for parsing archives of old documents that use
formats we currently believe to be at least partially broken.


More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list