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: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 16:03:44 +0200
Message-ID: <87h9cpz35r.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <20160613195538.GA1358@jasmine> <87ziqoezui.fsf@gnu.org>
	<20160614135001.GC20115@jasmine> <20160615125300.GB2461@solar>
	<20160615150258.GC27754@jasmine> <871t3xiepx.fsf@gnu.org>
	<20160618010700.GA28783@jasmine>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56446)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1bEdKK-000359-QU
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 10:03:53 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1bEdKH-0007gO-L9
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 10:03:52 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20160618010700.GA28783@jasmine> (Leo Famulari's message of "Fri,
	17 Jun 2016 21:07:00 -0400")
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: Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis:

> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:56:58PM +0200, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote:
>> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis:
>>=20
>> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 02:53:00PM +0200, Andreas Enge wrote:
>>=20
>> [...]
>>=20
>> >> 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?
>>=20
>> +1
>>=20
>> Besides, I use 2.0, because for some reason 2.1 has always failed for me
>> (though I never took the time to investigate.)
>>=20
>> 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 =
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 =E2=80=9Cyes=E2=80=9D.  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 can try to do that =E2=80=9Ceventually=E2=80=9D, if nobody beats me at it.

Thanks,
Ludo=E2=80=99.