Naming of GnuPG

[Matt Kinni]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
 
So theres already been a lot of arguing over this and bla bla bla. 
Basicaly, for a newbie, what is the difference between the two product 
lines?  Should an average user go with 1.4.x or 2.x?

David Shaw wrote:
| On Apr 18, 2008, at 8:16 PM, Hideki Saito wrote:
|
|> Hello,
|> How will version number convention will continue, as there are 1.4.x and
|> 2.0.x lines concurrently running?
|>
|> 1.4.x line will be evolving on its own separately from 2.0.x line, right?
|> Just curious, because now it is at 1.4.9 and 2.0.9...
|
| Not exactly evolving on its own.  1.4.x is not about to grow S/MIME 
capabilities like 2.0.x, but some changes will certainly apply to both.
|
|>> From user's perspective, I think 1.4.x should be called something like
|> GnuPG Standalone, instead of having two different version numbers...
|> Well, I guess some programs go like 1.4.10, 2.0.10, etc., so this may
|> not be relevant at all!
|
| Do people find the 1.4.x / 2.0.x thing confusing?
|
| David
|
| _______________________________________________
| Gnupg-users mailing list
| Gnupg-users at gnupg.org
| http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: comment line 1
Comment: comment line 2
 
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJICsS9AAoJELlJAlPUfypQR2cH/RoFO9KFQllUTE5ZkqQkUY07
pkQmgqaW+9AmvZpXRpe9TmRo3QePSdBeCsnfejot+0hLJGOWvZVh3/9J0KpNg5+T
92Nd5j1Nd4DUgkRB4tzNMAGdz2V9OU2k6N6QgR5AW+MnWi77YIYJv0XZVPHYz8Po
XR8lsxajLHE8PYa3QFZ1YoKsJ0+Ji67gMPuwjIry4hkqFtmQODJSektcN0cWZupa
4caesn12IF1jJhexcOaIwmxoJ5ZXqQVrr0Zj0ltafhDpUeahEr0QIVLnjUzRHKJW
mft9PEAX6luuGWg1M1F4x80WtX3IOUAUelE6UZb+LnmVy273gOtCL0V9M5bXPYg=
=teCD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20080419/f41414c8/attachment.htm>