From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Enge Subject: Re: Install gpg2 as gpg Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 17:54:43 +0200 Message-ID: <20160615155443.GA6634@solar> References: <20160613195538.GA1358@jasmine> <87ziqoezui.fsf@gnu.org> <20160614135001.GC20115@jasmine> <20160615125300.GB2461@solar> <20160615150258.GC27754@jasmine> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56345) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bDD9o-0002el-U9 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:55:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bDD9j-0006yy-0e for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:55:07 -0400 Received: from mailrelay6.public.one.com ([91.198.169.200]:53097) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bDD9i-0006yV-Iy for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:55:02 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160615150258.GC27754@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 On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:02:58AM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: > All three GnuPG branches (1.4, 2.0, 2.1) are actively maintained. Why > drop 2.0? If we start "deprecating" gnupg-1 by calling the gnupg-2 binary "gpg" instead of "gpg2", then we may as well drop the middle branch. Everything else would be somewhat confusing, and I do not think we should burden ourselves with going down the route of patching gnupg-2.0, so that it behaves like gnupg-2.1 in that its binaries look as if they were from gnupg-1 ;-) Moreover, practically speaking, my impression was that for its ease of use, there was a point in keeping gnupg-1, why there was less reason for sticking with 2.0 instead of 2.1. Andreas