Should gpg use alternatives?

2010-11-07 Thread Sam Varshavchik
Should gpg 1.x be installed as /usr/bin/gpg1, gpg 2.x be installed as 
/usr/bin/gpg2 (as is already the case), and /usr/bin/gpg replaced with a 
symlink managed by alternatives?




pgpiqSHAQTCkm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Should gpg use alternatives?

2010-11-07 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 05:20:02PM -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
 Should gpg 1.x be installed as /usr/bin/gpg1, gpg 2.x be installed as
 /usr/bin/gpg2 (as is already the case), and /usr/bin/gpg replaced
 with a symlink managed by alternatives?
 
If you check the list archives, this has come up before and the answer was
no.  gpg1 and gpg2 are intended to provide separate functionality.

-Toshio


pgpSH8pWWhIkK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel