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.)