On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 1:18 PM Brian C. Lane <b...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 09:29:10AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:29:26 -0800 > > "Brian C. Lane" <b...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > I am opposed to this. If a tool wants/needs to > > > use v2 it should be using gpg2 not gpg. gpg v1.4.x is still active > > > upstream and is shipped as gpg so we shouldn't be renaming it. > > > > Is there any sense upstream how much longer 1.x will be still > > supported? > > > > I was unaware it was still being maintained, so yeah, seems like a bad > > idea to change it until it's gone. > > AFAIK there are no plans to stop. It can be used in places where gpg2 > and its agent system don't make sense. Development on it has slowed, but > it gets regular security updates and the occasional new feature. > > As I understand it, it's still being supported with bug fixes, security fixes, and maybe the occasional feature, but most new features are primarily targeting gpg2.
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
