From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich =?utf-8?Q?Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1?= =?utf-8?Q?=2FKammer?=) Subject: Re: GnuPG in Guix Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:01:29 +0100 Message-ID: <87bnkh56va.fsf@taylan.uni.cx> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44448) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YQvHs-0004KU-Rt for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 05:03:26 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YQvG9-0001XA-RV for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 05:01:44 -0500 Received: from mail-we0-x232.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c03::232]:35206) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YQvG9-0001X3-Jj for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 05:01:33 -0500 Received: by wevl61 with SMTP id l61so9015283wev.2 for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 02:01:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: (g33k0b0y .'s message of "Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:46:05 +1100") 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-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: "g33k0b0y ." Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org "g33k0b0y ." writes: > It seems that Guix can install multiple versions of GPG. It names the > 1.4.18 version as gpg, and the 2.0.26 version as gpg2. > > There is a problem, however. > > By default Guix installs the highest version, which is 2.0.26. > However, an potential newbie could try calling it through bash as gpg. > This won't work, as it hasn't installed gpg version 1.4.18 and > therefore is expecting only gpg2 as its command. This is not made > clear to the user. > > If I am an inexperienced user and install gnupg, from my previous > experience with other distros, (Trisquel, gNewSense) I would expect to > use gpg to call it. Imagine my surprise when bash says command not > found! I am never told to use gpg2 as the command, nor would I think > of it. > > How can we improve this? My first instinct when a command I expect to be found isn't found is to try to tab-complete it in some way, because it happens occasionally that a CLI command has a different name than one would expect, indeed often because of such version issues. So I'd have thought it's fine, and people should get used to it; GPG isn't unique or rare in this regard. I think Debian does the same too. Taylan