Simon Joseffson mailto:si...@joseffson.org>> wrote:
> It seems there is push from the anti-GnuPG people to promote a fork called
> FreePG instead of real GnuPG, will you package that?
>
> https://gitlab.com/freepg/gnupg
FreePG is not an anti-GnuPG project, if anything it’s trying to keep GnuPG on
Linux alive as long as possible, so as not to force users into a disruptive
sudden migration to other tools. It is also very deliberately not a fork, but
rather a set of discrete patches that are already being applied by multiple
downstreams, some dating back years.
> Who is behind FreePG?
Me, mostly. I wrote the CI tooling that runs FreePG, and dkg has been helping
to review and de-lint the patches against upstream, in consultation with other
downstreams.
> Or do we want to trust 'Hooty McOwlface' with no earlier publicly recorded
> community contributions?
Some clarity about Hooty is overdue. It is a machine account controlled by a
Docker container that currently runs on my laptop, primarily because there are
some automation tasks (such as mangling branch histories) that are not
currently easy to do in the GitLab CI. I have commented on tickets using
Hooty’s name in the past, but I’m trying to avoid it these days to avoid giving
the impression that Hooty has an opinion.
At some point I may decide to walk away from the project, in which case I can
hand Hooty over to someone else as a functioning unit.
> This is even more true considering that the people who are patching GnuPG
> seems to be the same people who are working on replacing GnuPG with Seqoia.
If you mean dkg, he’s been doing thankless work for years now trying to keep
the OpenPGP ecosystem together, including by wrangling downstream packaging for
*multiple* projects. The Sequoia project has never been involved in FreePG, and
they most likely found out about it the same way everyone else here did. FreePG
is an orthogonal project and is not intended to either help or impede adoption
of Sequoia - the target userbase is people who can not, or do not wish to,
migrate away from GnuPG (yet?), but also don’t wish to become incompatible with
mainstream OpenPGP.
A
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
