On 05/02/15 21:02, Doug Barton wrote: > From my perspective, until the majority of OS' that ship GnuPG are shipping > 2.x > by default, removing 1.x support is premature. I should add that I'm using > that > transition as a bellwether of sorts, as I *think* that seeing this transition > will also indicate that the majority of end users have switched, and are > comfortable with the ways that GnuPG 2 is different.
I used Gpg4win very successfully on Windows7, 64 bit for quite some time and became 'addicted' to Kleopatra. So when I changed from Windows to Ubuntu last year, I was disappointed to find that the distro 'only' had Gnupg 1.4.16 running as standard. Gnupg 2.0.22 was available as a package so I installed it, hoping to regain use of Kleopatra amongst other things. Unfortunately, I couldn't get the Ubuntu package of 2.0.22 to work for reasons that I did not understand and was glad that I had 1.4.16 to fall back on for emails etc during the time it took me to learn how to build my own from source which I eventually did with gnupg 2.0.26. It worked fine. (Unfortunately, I did not find Kleopatra as good as I had remembered with Windows.) > I get the party line that we encourage people to use the packaged version, > which > will fix the dependency problem, etc. etc. But we've benefited from a > significant decrease in support problems ever since the machine-dependent code > was removed from Enigmail, and "You must use the packaged version!" became > untrue. As noted above, I had no success with the packaged 2.0.22. I never used the packaged version of enigmail although Thunderbird is the distro packaged version. I have not yet had a problem with enigmail's releases and nightlies downloaded directly from the enigmail website. > What you're proposing will create a whole new set of support problems, > starting > with the return of "You must use the packaged version!" on Linux, and similar > platforms. Add to that the whole new set of support problems that you're going > to create by dragging your happy GnuPG 1.x using userbase kicking and > screaming > into using 2.x It seems that eventually, we shall have to move to gnupg 2.1 which cannot co-exist with 2.0. If support for gnupg 1.x is abandoned in enigmail, what will we have to fall back on for email encryption and signing when the new installations of 2.1 fail to work out-of-the-box ? Philip
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ enigmail-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe or make changes to your subscription click here: https://admin.hostpoint.ch/mailman/listinfo/enigmail-users_enigmail.net
