On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 11:08:11AM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Daniel Kahn Gillmor <d...@debian.org> writes: > > I welcome review and critique of the packaging for this tricky package, > > which is pretty deeply embedded in Debian (though getting less so, as > > apt no longer requires it and we have many other OpenPGP implementations > > available today). I'd be even more delighted with offers of active > > co-maintenance beyond the work that Andreas and i have been doing. > > I've offered help, but my impression has been that it not giving up on > the schism thing has been more important than getting Debian to ship > upstream code to users and let people decide what they want to use. > > Sometimes it is better to let other make decisions rather than to make > decisions for others.
I agree, but in this instance given the reliance we have upon GnuPG throughout the Debian ecosystem I believe it's important we ensure that the default configuration of what we ship is compatible with OpenPGP. Power users can feel free to play with OpenPGP v6 / LibrePGP enhancements, but for the vast majority of folk sticking to RFC compliant v4 is going to make the most sense. Given what I've seen in this thread though it sounds like the appropriate patches have been worked out and it might be feasible to get 2.4 into unstable? J. -- 101 things you can't have too much of : 31 - Hot showers.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
