From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: Install gpg2 as gpg Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:07:00 -0400 Message-ID: <20160618010700.GA28783@jasmine> References: <20160613195538.GA1358@jasmine> <87ziqoezui.fsf@gnu.org> <20160614135001.GC20115@jasmine> <20160615125300.GB2461@solar> <20160615150258.GC27754@jasmine> <871t3xiepx.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49089) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bE4jH-0006Hi-Of for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:07:21 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bE4jC-0004jh-Pd for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 21:07:18 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <871t3xiepx.fsf@gnu.org> 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: Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:56:58PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Leo Famulari skribis: > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 02:53:00PM +0200, Andreas Enge wrote: > > [...] > > >> 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? > > +1 > > Besides, I use 2.0, because for some reason 2.1 has always failed for me > (though I never took the time to investigate.) > > Anyway, this patch is just about how we name the command. That the > command is called ‘gpg2’ is a well-known annoyance, and Werner > recommends not doing that anyway. Is there a consensus on the way forward? Should we apply this patch to gnupg-2.1? Is anyone willing to test and maintain patches against gnupg-2.0 (not me)?