Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> skribis: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 02:53:00PM +0200, Andreas Enge wrote:
[...] >> Why not just drop gpg-2.0 then? > > All three GnuPG branches (1.4, 2.0, 2.1) are actively maintained. Why > drop 2.0? +1 Besides, I use 2.0, because for some reason 2.1 has always failed for me (though I never took the time to investigate.) Anyway, this patch is just about how we name the command. That the command is called ‘gpg2’ is a well-known annoyance, and Werner recommends not doing that anyway. Ludo’.
