On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 1:18 PM Brian C. Lane <bcl@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 09:29:10AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:29:26 -0800
> "Brian C. Lane" <bcl@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > I am opposed to this. If a tool wants/needs to
> > use v2 it should be using gpg2 not gpg. gpg v1.4.x is still active
> > upstream and is shipped as gpg so we shouldn't be renaming it.
>
> Is there any sense upstream how much longer 1.x will be still
> supported?
>
> I was unaware it was still being maintained, so yeah, seems like a bad
> idea to change it until it's gone.

AFAIK there are no plans to stop. It can be used in places where gpg2
and its agent system don't make sense. Development on it has slowed, but
it gets regular security updates and the occasional new feature.


As I understand it, it's still being supported with bug fixes, security fixes, and maybe the occasional feature, but most new features are primarily targeting gpg2.