On Mon 2018-10-29 22:53:44 -0400, Jean-David Beyer wrote: > On 10/29/2018 11:54 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: >> So the question is: how far back must it go? What would the changes >> look like if we were to write a new enigmail that depended explicitly on >> GnuPG >= 2.2.10? > > It would all quit for my > > Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 6.10 (Santiago) > gnupg2-2.0.14-9.el6_10.x86_64 > > System which is up-to-date as of this weekend. Red Hat support their > releases for 10 years from original release, and backport security > fixes, but tend do do no feature changes or "improvements."
GnuPG 2.0.14 was released over 8 years ago. the entire 2.0.x series reached
end-of-life nearly a year ago.
So maybe RHEL should be the ones responsible for maintaining this
backward-compatibility layer in enigmail then, and Patrick can focus on
making things more usable for people running a modern version of the
underlying tools?
I'm just pointing out that the software developers involved here all
have limited time, and when we ask them to prioritize taking care of
ancient dependencies, we're implicitly asking them to *deprioritize*
other development efforts.
--dkg
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ enigmail-users mailing list enigmail-users@enigmail.net To unsubscribe or make changes to your subscription click here: https://admin.hostpoint.ch/mailman/listinfo/enigmail-users_enigmail.net
