* Daniel Leidert (daniel.leid...@wgdd.de) wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 17.12.2009, 20:11 -0500 schrieb nobled: > > > There hasn't been much activity on bug #483724 - doesn't it require > > gnupg 1.x to convert to update-alternatives first? Is that still on > > the todo list? > > The suggestion to use update-alternatives hasn't been forgotten. > However, there are currently no plans to do this now. The implications > of this action should be examined first. This will probably happen in > the near furture, when we also examine how to handle the new gnupg 2.1 > series.
Ok, lets discuss it. gnupg and gnupg2 should be largely compatible on the command-line, so I doubt there would be many problems with things that depend on the behavior of gpg, but there might be a few. Probably a bit late in this release cycle to try this out, but if we prefer gnupg and add a dire warning to gnupg2 that switching the link is completely untested, maybe it's ok :) The other option could be to drop gnupg and just use gnupg2. gnupg2 has a slightly larger footprint, and has a few more small dependencies. We may be able to tighten things up a bit so that it takes up less space. But I think making it an alternative is a better, more incremental step. > Tagging this wontfix for the moment. > > Regards, Daniel > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pkg-gnupg-maint mailing list > pkg-gnupg-ma...@lists.alioth.debian.org > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-gnupg-maint -- Eric Dorland <e...@kuroneko.ca> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: ho...@jabber.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature