On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 5:44 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < domi...@greysector.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 10 October 2017 at 20:57, Christopher wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 1:04 PM Brian C. Lane <b...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > The time for change is finally, almost here :) Upstream is talking > about > > > installing the v1.4 series as gpg1. They have already switched the > > > default install of 2.2 to /usr/bin/gpg, but we currently override this > > > with the --enable-gpg-is-gpg2 switch in gnupg2. > > > > > > Tracker bug here - https://dev.gnupg.org/T3443 > > > Discussion - > > > https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2017-October/033151.html > > > > > > When this happens I plan on tracking upstream's change and installing > as > > > gpg1, but I'm pretty sure we need a plan so that things don't end up > all > > > broken. > > > > > > > Have you considered using alternatives as part of that plan, with gpg2 > set > > to higher priority than gpg1? Since upstream calls both binaries "gpg", > it > > kind of already makes sense to deconflict them with the alternatives > system > > in this way. > > Alternatives are for things that are drop-in replacements. As far as I > know, gpg2 is not a drop-in replacement for gpg1. > I suppose it depends on which characteristics you're considering when you compare the two. I can't be the only one who has noticed their command-line usage similarities, which is the characteristic I would expect to matter when considering using the alternatives system.
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
