-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 04/21/2010 02:32 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > I think we shouldn’t make that symlink, because it’s a decision up to > the GnuPG developers and there must be a good reason why they didn’t do > it.
The obvious reason not to make such symbolic links is to allow easier simultaneous installation of GnuPG 1 and GnuPG 2. If you have a package that cannot use GnuPG 2, lack of such symlinks makes your life easier. In Nix this package will probably just get GnuPG 1 privately with no need to ever have GnuPG 1 and GnuPG 2 in PATH at once. On the other hand, if we want to replace "obsolete" GnuPG 1 with GnuPG 2 (or try doing this), it is easier to do with such a symlink in place. > How about removing these and optionally submitting the suggestion > upstream? Asking upstream is a good idea; removing the symlinks immediately is probably not. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJLzn41AAoJEE6tnN0aWvw3ouIIAIAEJ7SVx4JzMjQ4VGgepwM1 QyYer2DgUPKB/1imHkAJyw+Xp/uLu/Paku0rfRpF07+7L+ln2F1z53I/aIew8re5 pYEyEcIT99eacU0q1ovyjZMpCm2uiZM3S3VjG2HAgWic/G6p5qgAQoUcnj/z6p+Y PosHCxTTgGPxw6NJW2KZGaLK/PIj9A3/44Gg+3wMqo0kOgFJCl0lgd+2OCFTQnEr YWpursUFNRdwFErA/XTI+uqsv4YruRDlviDNyN9LldEeq2E4V5fLXoIAIvBYH+oO ahnA7uUEqU8u1PrtHZpu9hBeOE90WuStmnpsNwqstT2B6ACDgI2FPAM9gVm75fM= =qiIH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.cs.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
