Hello, As far as I know we do not use any exotic functionality. The main (and maybe even only) user is pakfire, if that works we are fine. If that breaks, we are a bit screwed :) -Michael > On 27 Mar 2021, at 21:39, Adolf Belka wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > On 27/03/2021 21:11, Peter Müller wrote: >> Hello Adolf, >> hello development folks, >> sorry for my tardy reply. > No problems. I know you have been and are very busy people. >>> Is IPFire using the 1.4 Branch because there is some historic requirement for the older insecure keys. >> (Assuming this was a question:) To my knowledge, we do not have key material in operation that would not >> be supported by GnuPG 2.x - the "classic" branch simply is more lightweight than the 2.x branch. >> The last time I looked at this, GnuPG 2.x required some flavour of the "pinentry" helper for entering >> passphrases, and won't compile without. Since there is no manual interaction on a firewall, "pinentry" >> is useless, but I was unable to work out how to omit it in GnuPG 2.x . > Thanks for the heads up on this. >> Things could have been changed, meanwhile. Perhaps this is now possible, so if you have some spare time >> to look at this, go ahead. :-) > I will give it a try. The worst that can happen is that I can't get it working and we stay with the status quo which is working currently. >> Thank you very much in advance for your efforts - and all your patches of the last weeks. > I am glad to help where I can.I know I can't help you with the real core stuff, my capabilities aren't sufficient but I can generally help with providing update patches on anything that I find has newer versions. > > Regards, > Adolf > >> Thanks, and best regards, >> Peter Müller