On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Tomas Mraz <tmraz@xxxxxxxxxx> 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? +1. I created on my machine a symlink /usr/bin/gpg to gpg2 to solve these kind of issues. > > 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 -- google.com/+arnaudgabourygabx -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
