* Daniel Kahn Gillmor (d...@fifthhorseman.net) wrote: > Package: gnupg2 > Severity: wishlist > > GnuPG 2.1.0 beta 3 was released back in December: > > > http://git.gnupg.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=gnupg.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/gnupg-2.1.0beta3 > > Active development work continues on that branch. > > GnuPG 2.1 offers some nice cryptographic properties like key-isolation > to within the agent, and has apparently been usable by at least wk for > about a year: > > http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2012-February/026573.html > > It would be nice to have 2.1 available within debian, even if it's > just in experimental for the moment.
In principle I would like to do this. I'm a little worried about the logistics of the secret key import that needs to happen. There's also the dirmngr transition. > I'd offer to help package it, but i'm not sure how the debian gnupg > folks want to deal with multiple versions of gnupg in the archive. > > maintaining 2 at the moment (gnupg and gnupg2) already seems a bit > unwieldy. adding a 3rd might be excessive. > > wk has also said that he would like to see gnupg in debian replaced by > gnupg2 when 2.1 is available: > > http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2012-January/026432.html > > (with the possible exception of the udeb) I think that's a good idea too even for the udeb, but others might not be happy about the additional dependencies :) > I'm filing this bug report as a tracker, and as a place to have this > discussion recorded publicly. Any thoughts on the general direction > to take this? -- Eric Dorland <e...@kuroneko.ca> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: ho...@jabber.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
