On St, 2016-02-17 at 07:29 -0800, Brian C. Lane wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:52:45AM +0000, Christopher wrote: > > I just ran into this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1 > > 309175 > > It's not a huge deal (and there are several workarounds, for git > > and for > > other tools which default ot using 'gpg'), but it highlights the > > mismatch > > between the default /usr/bin/gpg running gpg1, when other tools, > > like > > gpg-agent, are tailored for gpg2. > > > > RHEL/CentOS has shipped /usr/bin/gpg with gnupg2 since at least > > sometime in > > RHEL6. > > Which was a mistake, in my opinion. > > > I'm not saying we shouldn't continue to ship gnupg1, but can we at > > least > > rename it, so gnupg package is version 2, and gnupg1 provides > > /usr/bin/gpg1 > > instead? This seems overdue. Is there any reason not to do this? > > I am opposed to this. If a tool wants/needs to > use v2 it should be using gpg2 not gpg. gpg v1.4.x is still active > upstream and is shipped as gpg so we shouldn't be renaming it. What would be your opinion for using alternatives for the /usr/bin/gpg? The problem is that now the keystores are incompatible and it creates big confusion to the users when they see some key in gnupg-1 and do not see it in gnupg-2 and the other way around. -- Tomas Mraz No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back. Turkish proverb (You'll never know whether the road is wrong though.) -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
