From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>
Subject: Re: Install gpg2 as gpg
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 17:10:39 -0400
Message-ID: <20160724211039.GB17536@jasmine>
References: <20160613195538.GA1358@jasmine> <87ziqoezui.fsf@gnu.org>
	<20160614135001.GC20115@jasmine> <20160615125300.GB2461@solar>
	<20160615150258.GC27754@jasmine> <871t3xiepx.fsf@gnu.org>
	<20160618010700.GA28783@jasmine> <87h9cpz35r.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87oa5mah7e.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49505)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1bRQfo-0006TH-UR
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Jul 2016 17:10:57 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1bRQfk-0006vG-LI
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Jul 2016 17:10:55 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87oa5mah7e.fsf@gnu.org>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 10:56:05PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis:
> 
> > Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis:
> >
> >> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:56:58PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >>> 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?
> >
> > To me it seems the answer is “yes”.  If you want to be sure, please
> > leave another couple of days before pushing.  :-)
> >
> >> Is anyone willing to test and maintain patches against gnupg-2.0 (not
> >> me)?
> 
> I finally did that in commit bc85b127df622575988f8e760f72d608d0900a75.
> 
> Now, gnupg@2.0 provides the ‘gpg’ and ‘gpgv’ commands, in addition to
> ‘gpg2’ and ‘gpgv2’ (to ease transition).

And I just pushed a change that has a similar effect for gnupg@2.1 as
163708a66.