On St, 2016-02-17 at 08:10 -0800, Brian C. Lane wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 04:51:48PM +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote: > > 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? > > I'm not sure what you're asking here. We have 2 different binaries > already. I don't see any reason to add more or rename the existing > ones. I meant renaming the gnupg-1 binary to gpg1 and make the /usr/bin/gpg a symlink to it via the alternatives system so if user install only gnupg2 the symlink would point to gpg2. But the default can still be a symlink to gpg1. -- 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