From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: Install gpg2 as gpg Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:02:58 -0400 Message-ID: <20160615150258.GC27754@jasmine> References: <20160613195538.GA1358@jasmine> <87ziqoezui.fsf@gnu.org> <20160614135001.GC20115@jasmine> <20160615125300.GB2461@solar> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35135) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bDCLh-0001hV-2i for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:03:26 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bDCLb-0007a0-3g for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:03:20 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160615125300.GB2461@solar> 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: Andreas Enge Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 02:53:00PM +0200, Andreas Enge wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 09:50:01AM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 02:09:41PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > > Leo Famulari skribis: > > > > > > > There was discussion of installing the gnupg-2.1 binaries 'gpg2' and > > > > 'gpgv2' as 'gpg' and 'gpgv' on the 'Trustable guix pull' thread [0]. > > > > The configuration option does not exist for gnupg-2.0. > > > Really? Then we should do the same by hand, I guess. > > Any volunteers? ;) To clarify, I don't look forward to finding out if I'd have to patch the man page, the info document, etc. > Why not just drop gpg-2.0 then? All three GnuPG branches (1.4, 2.0, 2.1) are actively maintained. Why drop 2.0?