Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 06:41:35PM +0100, Tobias Nygren wrote: >> I've asked before and I shall ask again: >> Why do we have both versions? >> Is there some specific use-case that gnupg 2.0 can do but gnupg 2.1 cannot? >> What are the criteria that need to be met before we can ditch gnupg 2.0? > > Upstream says that 2.0.x is stable and 2.1.x is development. > Get upstream to release 2.2 and we get rid of this problem :) So as you say we have to use 2.0 by default instead of 2.1.... I think the other question is about depending on 1.0 vs 2.0. I think we're arriving at it being ok to default to gnupg2 vs gnupg1. Then there's the question of gpgsm and if that should default to on; I suspect it should, even if it's still an option. Plus why does building/installing gpg2 depend on gpgsm? And perhaps the agent should be a split package, with both 1 and 2 depending on it. All of this sounds like it's perhaps not already agreed to, and likely to involve a bunch of default flipping and fallout, so it doesn't seem like a good thing to do during a freeze, when the general idea is to fix build failures and security issues.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature