On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:56:58PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > 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.
Is there a consensus on the way forward? Should we apply this patch to gnupg-2.1? Is anyone willing to test and maintain patches against gnupg-2.0 (not me)?
