On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 10:56:05PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis: > > > Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> skribis: > > > >> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:56:58PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > [...] > > >>> 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? > > > > To me it seems the answer is “yes”. If you want to be sure, please > > leave another couple of days before pushing. :-) > > > >> Is anyone willing to test and maintain patches against gnupg-2.0 (not > >> me)? > > I finally did that in commit bc85b127df622575988f8e760f72d608d0900a75. > > Now, gnupg@2.0 provides the ‘gpg’ and ‘gpgv’ commands, in addition to > ‘gpg2’ and ‘gpgv2’ (to ease transition).
And I just pushed a change that has a similar effect for gnupg@2.1 as 163708a66.
