From: Junio C Hamano <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 23:03:16
Christian Hesse [off-list ref] writes:
However... Even if GnuPG 2.2.x (or whatever future release) will become next
stable: It will not reintroduce support for rfc1991.
How certain are we about the deprecation?
It also would make us feel safer if we did not have to depend on the
version or keyfile format (which would not have anything to do with
the decision to support or not to support rfc1991 format) to check
if the feature is supported, but that is a separate issue.
From: Christian Hesse <hidden> Date: 2016-06-15 23:03:16
Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] on Thu, 2014/12/11 15:10:
Christian Hesse [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
However... Even if GnuPG 2.2.x (or whatever future release) will become
next stable: It will not reintroduce support for rfc1991.
How certain are we about the deprecation?
The sixth beta of GnuPG [0] had this change:
* gpg: Removed the option --pgp2 and --rfc1991 and the ability to
create PGP-2 compatible messages.
It also would make us feel safer if we did not have to depend on the
version or keyfile format (which would not have anything to do with
the decision to support or not to support rfc1991 format) to check
if the feature is supported, but that is a separate issue.
So, in fact, gpg2.1 removes support for creating pgp2 (rfc1991)
signatures only. That is: We could put an armor exported signature
into our test suite, test verification against that signature,
and restrict the test for creation of that signature by gpg version (or
skip it completely).
Michael