Bug 215494
| Summary: | Update to gnupg 2.0 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Leo <sdl.web> |
| Component: | gnupg | Assignee: | Nalin Dahyabhai <nalin> |
| Status: | CLOSED DEFERRED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | dshaw, rdieter |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2006-11-16 17:16:39 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Leo
2006-11-14 12:12:17 UTC
Rex is already building a gnupg2 2.0.0 package for Extras. Beyond that, we still need to figure out. Is the plan to ship both gnupg2 and gnupg, or just one? I haven't gotten in touch with Rex yet. David, do you have a preference? For several reasons, I would argue for both, at least for the near term, and quite possibly for the long term as well. gnupg is more proven and tested at this point (which is not to say the gnupg2 code is bad, just that there are vastly more people running gnupg). People have also built gnupg into all sorts of scripts and processes, and a forced change to gnupg2 stands a good chance of breaking these. The "2.x" designation is unfortunate in that it implies that the new version replaces the "1.x" version. In fact, the GnuPG project is going to be maintaining both versions as they serve different purposes. gnupg and gnupg2 are designed to be able to coexist, so there is no harm in having someone install both. See also bug #215803. For now at least, I think we'll stick to two packages. Marking as deferred. |