Breaking changes

Robert J. Hansen rjh at
Tue May 22 11:47:43 CEST 2018

> Get real. These people are long-time GnuPG users and now you want to
> throw them under the bus because... well, because you prefer it that
> way.

1.4 was deprecated the instant 2.0 was released.  After much pushback it
was agreed to continue supporting 1.4.  But after fourteen years it's
time to end it so that Werner's limited time can be fully devoted to the
2.3 branch.

> Err... the specialised solution surely is GnuPG 1.4.

Yes.  And the code will still be around.  It will just no longer be
maintained.  If it's that important to you, you should consider
maintaining it yourself or paying someone to maintain it.

> So you are saying that long-time users should be deprived of an open
> source ongoing-maintained solution to their entirely valid present day
> use case to benefit a private company.

Why do you feel you have the right to make Werner work for you for free?

That's what you're saying here.  "I'm not paying a dime and I insist on
my legacy package getting highly professional work done on it for free."

Well... no.  It doesn't work that way.  Werner gets to work on what he
wants to work on, and I think the best bang for the buck,
community-wise, is 2.3.

But if Werner were to say tomorrow, "I'm done, guys, I'm going to go
sell ice cream on the beach," I'd just say thank you, wish him well, and
wonder where the beaches were in Germany.

> Isn't that effectively equivalent to commercial sponsors taking
> previously open source code base private? It's hardly a popular move
> when it happens.

Nope.  1.4 will still be out there, just unsupported.

> Surely if you can recognise that people will start screaming then you
> must also understand that it is entirely the wrong thing to do.

No.  I'm well past the point where I care about how vocal a fringe
minority is.  It's unwise to make engineering decisions based on the
volume made by a small number of people.

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list