On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 4:09 AM Tomas Mraz <tm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 05:33 +0000, Christopher wrote: > > 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/0331 > > > > > 51.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. > > I think that the incompatibility of the key storage warrants for not > using the alternatives system in this case. > > The alternatives system is there to provide choice between different implementations. The fact that they have different implementations of their backend storage is not a reason to avoid alternatives... it's a reason to use it to provide users a choice. Not using alternatives is just going to make it harder for users to switch back to gpg1 when gpg2 is made the default gpg, if a user needs to continue using the old storage format. It won't affect me, though. I'll be using gpg2, regardless. I was just thinking of trying to support those other users who need/want to stay on the old implementation.
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
