Are GnuPG 1 and GnuPG 2 compatible with each other?
With Macports, I realize that there are ports gnupg and a newer gnupg2. I'd like to use GnuPG to encrypt files. Should I install both, or just one is enough? If I installed both, are both compatible with each other? Does it matter which one I install first matter at all?
gnupg
edited Mar 27 '15 at 12:56
Jens Erat
12.8k114660
asked Oct 6 '13 at 23:23
qazwsxqazwsx
3,080154771
add a comment |
With Macports, I realize that there are ports gnupg and a newer gnupg2. I'd like to use GnuPG to encrypt files. Should I install both, or just one is enough? If I installed both, are both compatible with each other? Does it matter which one I install first matter at all?
gnupg
edited Mar 27 '15 at 12:56
Jens Erat
12.8k114660
asked Oct 6 '13 at 23:23
qazwsxqazwsx
3,080154771
add a comment |
With Macports, I realize that there are ports gnupg and a newer gnupg2. I'd like to use GnuPG to encrypt files. Should I install both, or just one is enough? If I installed both, are both compatible with each other? Does it matter which one I install first matter at all?
gnupg
edited Mar 27 '15 at 12:56
Jens Erat
12.8k114660
asked Oct 6 '13 at 23:23
qazwsxqazwsx
3,080154771
With Macports, I realize that there are ports gnupg and a newer gnupg2. I'd like to use GnuPG to encrypt files. Should I install both, or just one is enough? If I installed both, are both compatible with each other? Does it matter which one I install first matter at all?
gnupg
gnupg
edited Mar 27 '15 at 12:56
Jens Erat
12.8k114660
asked Oct 6 '13 at 23:23
qazwsxqazwsx
3,080154771
edited Mar 27 '15 at 12:56
Jens Erat
12.8k114660
asked Oct 6 '13 at 23:23
qazwsxqazwsx
3,080154771
edited Mar 27 '15 at 12:56
Jens Erat
12.8k114660
edited Mar 27 '15 at 12:56
Jens Erat
12.8k114660
edited Mar 27 '15 at 12:56
Jens Erat
12.8k114660
12.8k114660
asked Oct 6 '13 at 23:23
qazwsxqazwsx
3,080154771
asked Oct 6 '13 at 23:23
qazwsxqazwsx
3,080154771
asked Oct 6 '13 at 23:23
qazwsxqazwsx
3,080154771
3,080154771
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
GnuPG 1
GnuPG 1.4 ("classic") will stay for embedded and server usage, as it brings less dependencies and smaller binaries. Earlier, it was often installed as gpg, today it is more often named gpg1 (depending on distribution).
From the GnuPG 1.4 man page:
This is the standalone version of
gpg. For desktop use you should consider usinggpg2from the GnuPG-2 package (On some platformsgpg2is installed under the namegpg)
GnuPG 2
GnuPG 2.0 is a redesigned version of GnuPG -- but changes are mostly on internal level. The newer version is split into multiple modules, for example there are also modules for X.509 (used by S/MIME).
From man gpg2:
In contrast to the standalone version gpg, which is more suited for
server and embedded platforms, this version is commonly installed under
the namegpg2and more targeted to the desktop as it requires several
other modules to be installed.
GnuPG 2.1
An important change came with GnuPG 2.1, which combines the formerly separated public and private keyrings (pubring.gpg vs. secring.gpg) into the public keyring. This has been implemented in a manner keeping things compatible, so you can still use GnuPG 1 when GnuPG 2.1 integrated the private keyring, but changes to the private keys will not show up for the respective other implementation. From the changelog:
[...] allows co-existence of older GnuPG versions with GnuPG 2.1. However, any change to the private keys using the new gpg will not show up when using pre-2.1 versions of GnuPG and vice versa.
To directly answer your question:
Should I install both, or just one is enough?
Does it matter which one I install first matter at all?
Just install both. They don't interfere anyway. Install gpg (if not installed anyway) for other applications that access it (like package managers, mail clients, ...), and gpg2 for "direct use" on the command line.
If I installed both, are both compatible with each other?
Both implement the OpenPGP protocol, so they're compatible to each other regarding data shared among them. Additionally, they're (mostly) using the same commands and options, so most of the time you could switch between them arbitrarily.
GnuPG 2.1 makes changes to the private keyring invisible to pre-GnuPG 2.1 implementations (see above in the GnuPG 2.1 section).
answered Oct 7 '13 at 0:16
Jens EratJens Erat
12.8k114660
1
gpg2doesn't seem to see the private keys thatgpgsees. For instance,gpg2 --list-secret-keysgives no output, butgpg --list-secret-keysdoes give output.
– Flimm
Jul 23 '16 at 10:15
5
This is exactly what I described with the important difference between GnuPG 2 and 2.1: GnuPG 2.1 stores private keys in another file. Your private keys are stored in GnuPG 1.4'ssecring.gpg, which is not queried by GnuPG 2.1. Copy them to GnuPG 2.1 throughgpg --export-secret-keys [key-id] | gpg2 --import.
– Jens Erat
Jul 23 '16 at 10:22
gpg2 actually automatically imported the gpg keys for me (cygwin)
– lucidbrot
Nov 6 '17 at 15:36
See also: lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2018-January/059816.html
– Ben Creasy
May 29 '18 at 1:13
This answer may be a little out of date. On Ubuntu 18.04 bionic thegpgv1package is described as "deprecated "classic" version" andgpgv2is described as "dummy transitional package." Installing the plaingpgpackage gives gpg version 2.2.4. So it appears that gpgv1 is going away and gpgv2 (referred to simply as "gpg") is the new standard.
– Mark Doliner
Feb 7 at 22:10
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f655246%2fare-gnupg-1-and-gnupg-2-compatible-with-each-other%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
GnuPG 1
GnuPG 1.4 ("classic") will stay for embedded and server usage, as it brings less dependencies and smaller binaries. Earlier, it was often installed as gpg, today it is more often named gpg1 (depending on distribution).
From the GnuPG 1.4 man page:
This is the standalone version of
gpg. For desktop use you should consider usinggpg2from the GnuPG-2 package (On some platformsgpg2is installed under the namegpg)
GnuPG 2
GnuPG 2.0 is a redesigned version of GnuPG -- but changes are mostly on internal level. The newer version is split into multiple modules, for example there are also modules for X.509 (used by S/MIME).
From man gpg2:
In contrast to the standalone version gpg, which is more suited for
server and embedded platforms, this version is commonly installed under
the namegpg2and more targeted to the desktop as it requires several
other modules to be installed.
GnuPG 2.1
An important change came with GnuPG 2.1, which combines the formerly separated public and private keyrings (pubring.gpg vs. secring.gpg) into the public keyring. This has been implemented in a manner keeping things compatible, so you can still use GnuPG 1 when GnuPG 2.1 integrated the private keyring, but changes to the private keys will not show up for the respective other implementation. From the changelog:
[...] allows co-existence of older GnuPG versions with GnuPG 2.1. However, any change to the private keys using the new gpg will not show up when using pre-2.1 versions of GnuPG and vice versa.
To directly answer your question:
Should I install both, or just one is enough?
Does it matter which one I install first matter at all?
Just install both. They don't interfere anyway. Install gpg (if not installed anyway) for other applications that access it (like package managers, mail clients, ...), and gpg2 for "direct use" on the command line.
If I installed both, are both compatible with each other?
Both implement the OpenPGP protocol, so they're compatible to each other regarding data shared among them. Additionally, they're (mostly) using the same commands and options, so most of the time you could switch between them arbitrarily.
GnuPG 2.1 makes changes to the private keyring invisible to pre-GnuPG 2.1 implementations (see above in the GnuPG 2.1 section).
answered Oct 7 '13 at 0:16
Jens EratJens Erat
12.8k114660
1
gpg2doesn't seem to see the private keys thatgpgsees. For instance,gpg2 --list-secret-keysgives no output, butgpg --list-secret-keysdoes give output.
– Flimm
Jul 23 '16 at 10:15
5
This is exactly what I described with the important difference between GnuPG 2 and 2.1: GnuPG 2.1 stores private keys in another file. Your private keys are stored in GnuPG 1.4'ssecring.gpg, which is not queried by GnuPG 2.1. Copy them to GnuPG 2.1 throughgpg --export-secret-keys [key-id] | gpg2 --import.
– Jens Erat
Jul 23 '16 at 10:22
gpg2 actually automatically imported the gpg keys for me (cygwin)
– lucidbrot
Nov 6 '17 at 15:36
See also: lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2018-January/059816.html
– Ben Creasy
May 29 '18 at 1:13
This answer may be a little out of date. On Ubuntu 18.04 bionic thegpgv1package is described as "deprecated "classic" version" andgpgv2is described as "dummy transitional package." Installing the plaingpgpackage gives gpg version 2.2.4. So it appears that gpgv1 is going away and gpgv2 (referred to simply as "gpg") is the new standard.
– Mark Doliner
Feb 7 at 22:10
|
show 1 more comment
GnuPG 1
GnuPG 1.4 ("classic") will stay for embedded and server usage, as it brings less dependencies and smaller binaries. Earlier, it was often installed as gpg, today it is more often named gpg1 (depending on distribution).
From the GnuPG 1.4 man page:
This is the standalone version of
gpg. For desktop use you should consider usinggpg2from the GnuPG-2 package (On some platformsgpg2is installed under the namegpg)
GnuPG 2
GnuPG 2.0 is a redesigned version of GnuPG -- but changes are mostly on internal level. The newer version is split into multiple modules, for example there are also modules for X.509 (used by S/MIME).
From man gpg2:
In contrast to the standalone version gpg, which is more suited for
server and embedded platforms, this version is commonly installed under
the namegpg2and more targeted to the desktop as it requires several
other modules to be installed.
GnuPG 2.1
An important change came with GnuPG 2.1, which combines the formerly separated public and private keyrings (pubring.gpg vs. secring.gpg) into the public keyring. This has been implemented in a manner keeping things compatible, so you can still use GnuPG 1 when GnuPG 2.1 integrated the private keyring, but changes to the private keys will not show up for the respective other implementation. From the changelog:
[...] allows co-existence of older GnuPG versions with GnuPG 2.1. However, any change to the private keys using the new gpg will not show up when using pre-2.1 versions of GnuPG and vice versa.
To directly answer your question:
Should I install both, or just one is enough?
Does it matter which one I install first matter at all?
Just install both. They don't interfere anyway. Install gpg (if not installed anyway) for other applications that access it (like package managers, mail clients, ...), and gpg2 for "direct use" on the command line.
If I installed both, are both compatible with each other?
Both implement the OpenPGP protocol, so they're compatible to each other regarding data shared among them. Additionally, they're (mostly) using the same commands and options, so most of the time you could switch between them arbitrarily.
GnuPG 2.1 makes changes to the private keyring invisible to pre-GnuPG 2.1 implementations (see above in the GnuPG 2.1 section).
answered Oct 7 '13 at 0:16
Jens EratJens Erat
12.8k114660
1
gpg2doesn't seem to see the private keys thatgpgsees. For instance,gpg2 --list-secret-keysgives no output, butgpg --list-secret-keysdoes give output.
– Flimm
Jul 23 '16 at 10:15
5
This is exactly what I described with the important difference between GnuPG 2 and 2.1: GnuPG 2.1 stores private keys in another file. Your private keys are stored in GnuPG 1.4'ssecring.gpg, which is not queried by GnuPG 2.1. Copy them to GnuPG 2.1 throughgpg --export-secret-keys [key-id] | gpg2 --import.
– Jens Erat
Jul 23 '16 at 10:22
gpg2 actually automatically imported the gpg keys for me (cygwin)
– lucidbrot
Nov 6 '17 at 15:36
See also: lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2018-January/059816.html
– Ben Creasy
May 29 '18 at 1:13
This answer may be a little out of date. On Ubuntu 18.04 bionic thegpgv1package is described as "deprecated "classic" version" andgpgv2is described as "dummy transitional package." Installing the plaingpgpackage gives gpg version 2.2.4. So it appears that gpgv1 is going away and gpgv2 (referred to simply as "gpg") is the new standard.
– Mark Doliner
Feb 7 at 22:10
|
show 1 more comment
GnuPG 1
GnuPG 1.4 ("classic") will stay for embedded and server usage, as it brings less dependencies and smaller binaries. Earlier, it was often installed as gpg, today it is more often named gpg1 (depending on distribution).
From the GnuPG 1.4 man page:
This is the standalone version of
gpg. For desktop use you should consider usinggpg2from the GnuPG-2 package (On some platformsgpg2is installed under the namegpg)
GnuPG 2
GnuPG 2.0 is a redesigned version of GnuPG -- but changes are mostly on internal level. The newer version is split into multiple modules, for example there are also modules for X.509 (used by S/MIME).
From man gpg2:
In contrast to the standalone version gpg, which is more suited for
server and embedded platforms, this version is commonly installed under
the namegpg2and more targeted to the desktop as it requires several
other modules to be installed.
GnuPG 2.1
An important change came with GnuPG 2.1, which combines the formerly separated public and private keyrings (pubring.gpg vs. secring.gpg) into the public keyring. This has been implemented in a manner keeping things compatible, so you can still use GnuPG 1 when GnuPG 2.1 integrated the private keyring, but changes to the private keys will not show up for the respective other implementation. From the changelog:
[...] allows co-existence of older GnuPG versions with GnuPG 2.1. However, any change to the private keys using the new gpg will not show up when using pre-2.1 versions of GnuPG and vice versa.
To directly answer your question:
Should I install both, or just one is enough?
Does it matter which one I install first matter at all?
Just install both. They don't interfere anyway. Install gpg (if not installed anyway) for other applications that access it (like package managers, mail clients, ...), and gpg2 for "direct use" on the command line.
If I installed both, are both compatible with each other?
Both implement the OpenPGP protocol, so they're compatible to each other regarding data shared among them. Additionally, they're (mostly) using the same commands and options, so most of the time you could switch between them arbitrarily.
GnuPG 2.1 makes changes to the private keyring invisible to pre-GnuPG 2.1 implementations (see above in the GnuPG 2.1 section).
answered Oct 7 '13 at 0:16
Jens EratJens Erat
12.8k114660
GnuPG 1
GnuPG 1.4 ("classic") will stay for embedded and server usage, as it brings less dependencies and smaller binaries. Earlier, it was often installed as gpg, today it is more often named gpg1 (depending on distribution).
From the GnuPG 1.4 man page:
This is the standalone version of
gpg. For desktop use you should consider usinggpg2from the GnuPG-2 package (On some platformsgpg2is installed under the namegpg)
GnuPG 2
GnuPG 2.0 is a redesigned version of GnuPG -- but changes are mostly on internal level. The newer version is split into multiple modules, for example there are also modules for X.509 (used by S/MIME).
From man gpg2:
In contrast to the standalone version gpg, which is more suited for
server and embedded platforms, this version is commonly installed under
the namegpg2and more targeted to the desktop as it requires several
other modules to be installed.
GnuPG 2.1
An important change came with GnuPG 2.1, which combines the formerly separated public and private keyrings (pubring.gpg vs. secring.gpg) into the public keyring. This has been implemented in a manner keeping things compatible, so you can still use GnuPG 1 when GnuPG 2.1 integrated the private keyring, but changes to the private keys will not show up for the respective other implementation. From the changelog:
[...] allows co-existence of older GnuPG versions with GnuPG 2.1. However, any change to the private keys using the new gpg will not show up when using pre-2.1 versions of GnuPG and vice versa.
To directly answer your question:
Should I install both, or just one is enough?
Does it matter which one I install first matter at all?
Just install both. They don't interfere anyway. Install gpg (if not installed anyway) for other applications that access it (like package managers, mail clients, ...), and gpg2 for "direct use" on the command line.
If I installed both, are both compatible with each other?
Both implement the OpenPGP protocol, so they're compatible to each other regarding data shared among them. Additionally, they're (mostly) using the same commands and options, so most of the time you could switch between them arbitrarily.
GnuPG 2.1 makes changes to the private keyring invisible to pre-GnuPG 2.1 implementations (see above in the GnuPG 2.1 section).
answered Oct 7 '13 at 0:16
Jens EratJens Erat
12.8k114660
edited Feb 8 at 21:06
answered Oct 7 '13 at 0:16
Jens EratJens Erat
12.8k114660
answered Oct 7 '13 at 0:16
Jens EratJens Erat
12.8k114660
answered Oct 7 '13 at 0:16
Jens EratJens Erat
12.8k114660
12.8k114660
1
gpg2doesn't seem to see the private keys thatgpgsees. For instance,gpg2 --list-secret-keysgives no output, butgpg --list-secret-keysdoes give output.
– Flimm
Jul 23 '16 at 10:15
5
This is exactly what I described with the important difference between GnuPG 2 and 2.1: GnuPG 2.1 stores private keys in another file. Your private keys are stored in GnuPG 1.4'ssecring.gpg, which is not queried by GnuPG 2.1. Copy them to GnuPG 2.1 throughgpg --export-secret-keys [key-id] | gpg2 --import.
– Jens Erat
Jul 23 '16 at 10:22
gpg2 actually automatically imported the gpg keys for me (cygwin)
– lucidbrot
Nov 6 '17 at 15:36
See also: lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2018-January/059816.html
– Ben Creasy
May 29 '18 at 1:13
This answer may be a little out of date. On Ubuntu 18.04 bionic thegpgv1package is described as "deprecated "classic" version" andgpgv2is described as "dummy transitional package." Installing the plaingpgpackage gives gpg version 2.2.4. So it appears that gpgv1 is going away and gpgv2 (referred to simply as "gpg") is the new standard.
– Mark Doliner
Feb 7 at 22:10
|
show 1 more comment
1
gpg2doesn't seem to see the private keys thatgpgsees. For instance,gpg2 --list-secret-keysgives no output, butgpg --list-secret-keysdoes give output.
– Flimm
Jul 23 '16 at 10:15
5
This is exactly what I described with the important difference between GnuPG 2 and 2.1: GnuPG 2.1 stores private keys in another file. Your private keys are stored in GnuPG 1.4'ssecring.gpg, which is not queried by GnuPG 2.1. Copy them to GnuPG 2.1 throughgpg --export-secret-keys [key-id] | gpg2 --import.
– Jens Erat
Jul 23 '16 at 10:22
gpg2 actually automatically imported the gpg keys for me (cygwin)
– lucidbrot
Nov 6 '17 at 15:36
See also: lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2018-January/059816.html
– Ben Creasy
May 29 '18 at 1:13
This answer may be a little out of date. On Ubuntu 18.04 bionic thegpgv1package is described as "deprecated "classic" version" andgpgv2is described as "dummy transitional package." Installing the plaingpgpackage gives gpg version 2.2.4. So it appears that gpgv1 is going away and gpgv2 (referred to simply as "gpg") is the new standard.
– Mark Doliner
Feb 7 at 22:10
1
1
gpg2 doesn't seem to see the private keys that gpg sees. For instance, gpg2 --list-secret-keys gives no output, but gpg --list-secret-keys does give output.– Flimm
Jul 23 '16 at 10:15
gpg2 doesn't seem to see the private keys that gpg sees. For instance, gpg2 --list-secret-keys gives no output, but gpg --list-secret-keys does give output.– Flimm
Jul 23 '16 at 10:15
5
5
This is exactly what I described with the important difference between GnuPG 2 and 2.1: GnuPG 2.1 stores private keys in another file. Your private keys are stored in GnuPG 1.4's
secring.gpg, which is not queried by GnuPG 2.1. Copy them to GnuPG 2.1 through gpg --export-secret-keys [key-id] | gpg2 --import.– Jens Erat
Jul 23 '16 at 10:22
This is exactly what I described with the important difference between GnuPG 2 and 2.1: GnuPG 2.1 stores private keys in another file. Your private keys are stored in GnuPG 1.4's
secring.gpg, which is not queried by GnuPG 2.1. Copy them to GnuPG 2.1 through gpg --export-secret-keys [key-id] | gpg2 --import.– Jens Erat
Jul 23 '16 at 10:22
gpg2 actually automatically imported the gpg keys for me (cygwin)
– lucidbrot
Nov 6 '17 at 15:36
gpg2 actually automatically imported the gpg keys for me (cygwin)
– lucidbrot
Nov 6 '17 at 15:36
See also: lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2018-January/059816.html
– Ben Creasy
May 29 '18 at 1:13
See also: lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2018-January/059816.html
– Ben Creasy
May 29 '18 at 1:13
This answer may be a little out of date. On Ubuntu 18.04 bionic the
gpgv1 package is described as "deprecated "classic" version" and gpgv2 is described as "dummy transitional package." Installing the plain gpg package gives gpg version 2.2.4. So it appears that gpgv1 is going away and gpgv2 (referred to simply as "gpg") is the new standard.– Mark Doliner
Feb 7 at 22:10
This answer may be a little out of date. On Ubuntu 18.04 bionic the
gpgv1 package is described as "deprecated "classic" version" and gpgv2 is described as "dummy transitional package." Installing the plain gpg package gives gpg version 2.2.4. So it appears that gpgv1 is going away and gpgv2 (referred to simply as "gpg") is the new standard.– Mark Doliner
Feb 7 at 22:10
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f655246%2fare-gnupg-1-and-gnupg-2-compatible-with-each-other%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
