On 01/30/2012 03:29 PM, Steve Sakoman wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Saul Wold<s...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
This would imply that we need to have a GPLv2 Version of the gnupg
recipe also, Steve if you had to look at or handle the newer GPLv3 gnupg
code itself, you may not be able to write the GPLv2 recipe or create patches
for it, can you arrange for someone to create that patch?
OE-classic has a recipe for gnupg-1.4.10, so perhaps the safest
approach would be to import that recipe since I *have* browsed the
gnupg v2 code.
You mean v3 code no doubt.
I know from experience that signed repositories won't work for that
version as-is. Zypper explicitly uses gpg2.
Any idea how much work there is there? Do you know of anyone that can
help out with this?
It *may* be that gpg and gpg2 are compatible enough that you could get
away with a symlink and a v1.x version of gnupg. Or perhaps one could
patch zypper to try gpg if gpg2 isn't present. Thoughts?
I think it would be clearer if we patch zypper for gpg instead of hiding
behind a symlink. Other tools that may want to use gpg2 might get the
wrong thing.
Another possibility would be disable signed repos for non-GPLv3, but I
am not wild about that idea since it's highly likely that a commercial
vendor would want to provide signed repos in a non-GPLv3 device for
security and sanity.
Sau!
Steve
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
