2010/7/14 Brian C. Lane <b...@redhat.com>: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 07/13/2010 05:38 AM, David Shaw wrote: >> On 07/13/2010 09:54 AM, Karel Klic wrote: >> >>> several users of Emacs and one user of Vim complained in rhbz#574406 [1] >>> that they can no longer use their editor to open and edit gpg-encrypted >>> files in Fedora 13. >>> >>> The reason is that GnuPG 1.4 was deprecated after Fedora 12 release, and >>> GnuPG 2 was introduced to replace it. However, GnuPG 2 is not entirely >>> compatible with GnuPG 1.4. >>> >>> I looked at GnuPG 2 and it seems that it would be very difficult to >>> modify Emacs and Vim to support it. GnuPG 2 does not allow to enter a >>> password using shell -- it needs entire terminal (as it uses ncurses >>> program pinentry-curses). >>> Text editors can use only shell to send a password to GnuPG. >>> >>> What about reviving GnuPG 1.4? It is maintained, secure, supported, and >>> its integration into text editors is used extensively and works well. It >>> can live alongside GnuPG 2. >> >> No disagreement here in that GnuPG (of whatever version) should work with >> Emacs and vim. That should be fixed. However, as a GnuPG developer, I'd >> like to suggest another reason for keeping both GnuPG 1.x and 2.x: although >> there is significant overlap, they're not really aimed at the same problem. >> 1.x is aimed at servers where its "all in one" construction simplifies >> things, or in embedded systems or other places where space is tight. Some >> people also prefer the smaller and more easily reviewed code base and thus >> use 1.x as their "desktop" GnuPG. The version numbering is unfortunate in >> that it suggests that 2.x replaces 1.x, but in reality, the 1.x branch is a >> maintained product on its own. >> >> 1.x and 2.x are designed to be able to be installed together if necessary >> (note that the upstream code generates a binary named "gpg2" - the "gpg" >> binary in F13 is due to a local patch). This was done very well in F11. >> > > This is why I'm so surprised to see gpg be deprecated in f13. Upstream > is supporting both and the manpage even indicates that the binary should > be gpg2. > > I don't see any reason for it to have been removed in f13, and am > willing to help maintain it. I've been a pgp and gpg user since the > early 90's, I attempted to port pgp to the Atari ST (unsuccessfully I > should note :) ) at one time. > > - -- > Brian C. Lane <b...@redhat.com>
Please fill a Review Request for gnupg in bugzilla, if no one opposes reviving gnupg in koji . Regards, Chen Lei -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
