For a really long time now, we've shipped both gnupg and gnupg2
in Fedora. In fact, in Fedora 9 a relatively standard install will
get both installed.

This isn't ideal, obviously - we want as much to be using the same
code, keystore, etc. as possible.

Here's the current list of things that require gnupg 1:

AcetoneISO2 spot
apt athimm
duplicity robert
ketchup ben
perl-GnuPG-Interface mdomsch
perl-Module-Signature scop
pgp-tools mdomsch
psi abompard
qca-gnupg abompard
spamassassin wtogami
zeroinstall-injector salimma

It appears a good number of these can be ported to gnupg2, if not
all of them. Should we wire up a feature page?

Bill

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Bill Nottingham said the following on 07/15/2008 08:47 AM Pacific Time:

For a really long time now, we've shipped both gnupg and gnupg2
in Fedora. In fact, in Fedora 9 a relatively standard install will
get both installed.

This isn't ideal, obviously - we want as much to be using the same
code, keystore, etc. as possible.

Here's the current list of things that require gnupg 1:

AcetoneISO2 spot
apt athimm
duplicity robert
ketchup ben
perl-GnuPG-Interface mdomsch
perl-Module-Signature scop
pgp-tools mdomsch
psi abompard
qca-gnupg abompard
spamassassin wtogami
zeroinstall-injector salimma

It appears a good number of these can be ported to gnupg2, if not
all of them. Should we wire up a feature page?

Bill



I think it is a good idea.

John

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Bill Nottingham wrote:

> For a really long time now, we've shipped both gnupg and gnupg2
> in Fedora. In fact, in Fedora 9 a relatively standard install will
> get both installed.
...
> It appears a good number of these can be ported to gnupg2, if not
> all of them. Should we wire up a feature page?

Imo, yes, it's a worthy goal to get these ported so that at least gnupg(1)
doesn't land in any default install.

fyi, here's my inquiry upstrem on whether it's possible or a good idea to
try dropping gnupg1:
http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2008-July/024485.html
(come to think of it, my question there wasn't phrased all too well, but the
feedback was insightful)

answer: probably not a good idea.

So, that leaves consolidating/standardizing on gnupg2, as something still
worthwhile.

-- Rex

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Friday 18 July 2008 09:11:21 Rex Dieter wrote:
> Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > For a really long time now, we've shipped both gnupg and gnupg2
> > in Fedora. In fact, in Fedora 9 a relatively standard install will
> > get both installed.
>
> > It appears a good number of these can be ported to gnupg2, if not
> > all of them. Should we wire up a feature page?
>
> Imo, yes, it's a worthy goal to get these ported so that at least gnupg(1)
> doesn't land in any default install.
>
> fyi, here's my inquiry upstrem on whether it's possible or a good idea to
> try dropping gnupg1:
> http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2008-July/024485.html
>
> answer: probably not a good idea.

Why did you come to that conclusion? We don't support IDEA and Suse did
mention that they have switched to only GPG2. The only caution is around
gpg-agent.


> So, that leaves consolidating/standardizing on gnupg2, as something still
> worthwhile.

Agreed. We need to pursue this as GPG1 cannot take advantage of any FIPS-140-2
certified libraries. We need to find the rough spots and work them out.

-Steve

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Steve Grubb wrote:

On Friday 18 July 2008 09:11:21 Rex Dieter wrote:

Bill Nottingham wrote:

For a really long time now, we've shipped both gnupg and gnupg2
in Fedora. In fact, in Fedora 9 a relatively standard install will
get both installed.
It appears a good number of these can be ported to gnupg2, if not
all of them. Should we wire up a feature page?

Imo, yes, it's a worthy goal to get these ported so that at least gnupg(1)
doesn't land in any default install.

fyi, here's my inquiry upstrem on whether it's possible or a good idea to
try dropping gnupg1:
http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2008-July/024485.html

answer: probably not a good idea.


Why did you come to that conclusion? We don't support IDEA and Suse did
mention that they have switched to only GPG2. The only caution is around
gpg-agent.


based on Werner Koch's response:
http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2008-July/024490.html

"You should don't remove gnupg-1 from a distribution..."

shrug, I'm ok either way.

-- Rex



--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 12:48 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Steve Grubb wrote:
> > On Friday 18 July 2008 09:11:21 Rex Dieter wrote:
> >> Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >>> For a really long time now, we've shipped both gnupg and gnupg2
> >>> in Fedora. In fact, in Fedora 9 a relatively standard install will
> >>> get both installed.
> >>> It appears a good number of these can be ported to gnupg2, if not
> >>> all of them. Should we wire up a feature page?
> >> Imo, yes, it's a worthy goal to get these ported so that at least gnupg(1)
> >> doesn't land in any default install.
> >>
> >> fyi, here's my inquiry upstrem on whether it's possible or a good idea to
> >> try dropping gnupg1:
> >> http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2008-July/024485.html
> >>
> >> answer: probably not a good idea.
> >
> > Why did you come to that conclusion? We don't support IDEA and Suse did
> > mention that they have switched to only GPG2. The only caution is around
> > gpg-agent.
>
> based on Werner Koch's response:
> http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2008-July/024490.html
>
> "You should don't remove gnupg-1 from a distribution..."

He also says you should ship BIND 8 and 9. And there are people that
say you should ship KDE 3.x and KDE 4 desktops.

We should cut the cruft and onvert what we ship to use gnupg2.
Otherwise, the fact that there are two will persist forever.

Jeremy

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Jeremy Katz wrote:

On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 12:48 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:

Steve Grubb wrote:

On Friday 18 July 2008 09:11:21 Rex Dieter wrote:

Bill Nottingham wrote:

For a really long time now, we've shipped both gnupg and gnupg2
in Fedora. In fact, in Fedora 9 a relatively standard install will
get both installed.
It appears a good number of these can be ported to gnupg2, if not
all of them. Should we wire up a feature page?

Imo, yes, it's a worthy goal to get these ported so that at least gnupg(1)
doesn't land in any default install.

fyi, here's my inquiry upstrem on whether it's possible or a good idea to
try dropping gnupg1:
http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2008-July/024485.html

answer: probably not a good idea.
Why did you come to that conclusion? We don't support IDEA and Suse did
mention that they have switched to only GPG2. The only caution is around
gpg-agent.

based on Werner Koch's response:
http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2008-July/024490.html

"You should don't remove gnupg-1 from a distribution..."


He also says you should ship BIND 8 and 9. And there are people that
say you should ship KDE 3.x and KDE 4 desktops.

We should cut the cruft and onvert what we ship to use gnupg2.
Otherwise, the fact that there are two will persist forever.

Jeremy



+1

This is the same argument that exists for compatibility libraries: their
existence in distributions is a disincentive for developers to port
their applications.


--

Benjamin Lewis
Fedora Ambassador
ben.lewis@benl.co.uk

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://benl.co.uk./ PGP Key: 0x647E480C

"In cases of major discrepancy, it is always reality that got it wrong"
-- RFC 1118
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 11:16:31PM +0100, Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>
> This is the same argument that exists for compatibility libraries: their
> existence in distributions is a disincentive for developers to port
> their applications.

Please don't force people to do what you wan and leave the choice to
them. Or, better, send patches.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 13:12:40 -0400,
Steve Grubb <sgrubb@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Why did you come to that conclusion? We don't support IDEA and Suse did
> mention that they have switched to only GPG2. The only caution is around
> gpg-agent.

It's not too hard to provide that support. There is a source file you can grab
compile and drop off in gpg's library directory. I don't know if gpg2 works
the same way. Thinking about it I am surprised there isn't a Livna rpm
providing the encryption plugin.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Bruno Wolff III <bruno <at> wolff.to> writes:
> It's not too hard to provide that support. There is a source file you can
> grab compile and drop off in gpg's library directory. I don't know if gpg2
> works the same way. Thinking about it I am surprised there isn't a Livna rpm
> providing the encryption plugin.

The whole reason they're talking about no longer being able to support IDEA as
easily with GPG 2 is that GPG 2 no longer supports plugins, so you have to
patch GPG 2 itself to add it.

Kevin Kofler

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list