-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> No, you're wrong. The mailcrypt front end, for example, works Thomas> with both. And that's the case we are talking about. OK, so it'll work for now. But you run the (unnecessary, IMHO) risk of future breakage. Assuming for a second that we don't already know what's going to happen to mailcrypt (i.e. it now only supports gnupg), what if mailcrypt drops support for the old-style pgp. Then should pgp stop providing "pgp implementation"? No. Just because mailcrypt doesn't support old pgp doesn't make pgp less of a pgp implementation. What we would need to do, then, is to make another "pgp implementation"-like virtual package, call it "pgp implementation1". Now suppose that PGP comes out with version 6, which has a different command-line interface. mailcrypt adds support for it. We make a virtual package called "pgp implementation2". And before long, gnupg provides "pgp implementation", "pgp implementation 1", "pgp implementation2", "pgp implementation3", ... And that's just for mailcrypt, not to mention the other pgp front ends, which might work with just old pgp, or old pgp and gnupg, or ... There are 2^3 - 1 = 7 possible sets of compatabilities for the front ends if we only have 3 different interfaces, so we would potentially need 7 virtual packages. In short, this is a bad idea. - -- Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.geocities.com/hubertchan/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/71FDA37F Fingerprint: 6CC5 822D 2E55 494C 81DD 6F2C 6518 54DF 71FD A37F Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Please encrypt *all* e-mail to me. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7MimhZRhU33H9o38RAq0LAKC8CZWPjqdHGGlYIduy24PxU+GxhQCeK2xb b3zyNIRinbAwaHSn+uxNjp8= =/w8A -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----