On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 9:28 PM Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Christopher wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 2:23 PM Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > Moreover, gpg2 is not option-compatible with gpg1, so using > >> > alternatives is not a good idea for this reason, either. > >> > >> The same argument could be used to support not changing what 'gpg' points > >> to (gpg v1 vs v2) as well. > >> > >> -- Rex > > > > I agree with Rex. Not 100% option-compatible isn't a great argument > > against using symlinks to a binary when you're already willing to swap > > out the binary itself. > > I think it makes sense to use alternatives for 'gpg', with the default > > being gpg2. > > To be clear, I wasn't using the argument in favor, in fact, I support the > case that alternatives aren't the right solution here either. > Thanks for the clarification. > What *I* think (mildly, not strongly) is gpg has always been gnupg(v1) and > gpg2 has always been gnupg2, and I think it should stay that way... (but I'm > not doing the work nor supporting these, so will defer to maintainers' > discretion ultimately) > My preference is also a mild one, mostly out of sympathy for folks who still want to use gnupg1 with fewer headaches. But also, phrases like "gpg2 behaves just like gpg" in the upstream README and the fact that both the 1.4 and 2.2 branches both generate a 'gpg' binary name by default indicate to me that it's reasonable for different users to have different expectations for which version a binary named 'gpg' should represent. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
