From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: Install gpg2 as gpg Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:56:58 +0200 Message-ID: <871t3xiepx.fsf@gnu.org> 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=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49865) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bDUyx-0007Ep-3f for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 06:57:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bDUyu-0007a3-AW for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 06:57:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160615150258.GC27754@jasmine> (Leo Famulari's message of "Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:02:58 -0400") 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 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 =E2=80=98gpg2=E2=80=99 is a well-known annoyance, and Wer= ner recommends not doing that anyway. Ludo=E2=80=99.