From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Enge Subject: Re: Install gpg2 as gpg Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 09:52:46 +0200 Message-ID: <20160614075246.GA1570@solar> References: <20160613195538.GA1358@jasmine> <20160613202423.GA5290@khazad-dum> <20160613210708.GA12792@jasmine> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60874) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bCj9g-0005gw-3q for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 03:53:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bCj9a-00047W-3y for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 03:52:59 -0400 Received: from mailrelay6.public.one.com ([91.198.169.200]:11719) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bCj9Z-00047P-Mg for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 03:52:54 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160613210708.GA12792@jasmine> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Leo Famulari Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Hello, On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 05:07:08PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 08:24:23PM +0000, ng0 wrote: > > What if we patched gpg-1 to not colide with gpg-2? > > > > For example, move gpg and gpgv and man pages of them > > for gpg-1 to something which has -1 in its name. > > On the other hand this would have to be consistent and be followed > > straigth to not colide again. I'm not sure if this > > approach will work out in the long run. > > Unless this is a configuration option supported by upstream GnuPG, I > don't want to do that. For the same reason, my patch does not affect > gnupg-2.0. I agree with this argument - one of our principles is to mess as little as possible with upstream packages. In this case, since there is a special configuration option for gnupg-2, we may use it, but then we would have to pay the price that both gnupg-1 (or gnupg-2.0) and gnupg-2.1 could not be installed together any more. Maybe it would then be consistent to drop gnupg-2.0 from the distribution. Finally I managed to make gnupg-2.1 work together with mutt, but it was not completely straightforward... So we should document the change if we make it. By the way, should we maybe make pinentry a propagated input of gnupg-2.1? If I understand correctly, gnupg-2.1 will not work without it (and mixing pinentry from Debian with gnupg-2.1 from Guix was one of the reasons for gnupg not working at first). Andreas