GnuPG and OS X

[Bernhard Reiter]

Alex, thanks for the overview and for coordination the effort,
I believe this is really important to promote end-to-end 
email encryption.

Am Donnerstag, 12. Mai 2011 00:11:02 schrieb Alexander Willner:
> 1.2. We can clearly state at
> http://www.gpgtools.org/macgpg1/index.html that using GnuPG 1 is not a
> good idea and the user should tell us why he wants to use version 1
> instead of version 2.

GnuPG 1 is for very special usecases only, in my view it should be phased out 
whereever possible. Even for small and tiny cases. I believe this is 
important as is promoting the use of gpgme everywhere. It is the only way we 
can iron out the problems over time.

Am Montag, 16. Mai 2011 14:54:17 schrieb Werner Koch:
> > and the prominent links from http://gnupg.org etc.
>
> It currently reads:
>
>   GnuPG comes in two flavours: 1.4.11 is the well known and portable
>   standalone version, whereas 2.0.17 is the enhanced and somewhat harder
>   to build version.
>
> any suggestions on how to reformulate this text?  1.4.11 shall be
> mentioned but not as prominent as today.

My shot at it:
    Version 2.0.17 the current, stable and recommended version of GnuPG. 
    For developers: If your system is far-off from current standards 
    or very reduced maybe, GnuPG might be hard to build and run. This case 
    you can try the maintained, old branch: Version 1.4.11  
   
Best,
Bernhard

-- 
Managing Director - Owner: www.intevation.net       (Free Software Company)
Deputy Coordinator Germany: fsfe.org. Board member: www.kolabsys.com.
Intevation GmbH, Osnabrück, DE; Amtsgericht Osnabrück, HRB 18998
Geschäftsführer Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20110519/051dfa7a/attachment.pgp>