On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 10:56:05PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis:
>
> > Leo Famulari 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
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis:
> Leo Famulari 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 n
Leo Famulari skribis:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:56:58PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Leo Famulari 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 a
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:56:58PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Leo Famulari 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.
Leo Famulari 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
(tho
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:02:58AM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote:
> All three GnuPG branches (1.4, 2.0, 2.1) are actively maintained. Why
> drop 2.0?
If we start "deprecating" gnupg-1 by calling the gnupg-2 binary "gpg" instead
of "gpg2", then we may as well drop the middle branch. Everything else wou
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 02:53:00PM +0200, Andreas Enge wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 09:50:01AM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 02:09:41PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > > Leo Famulari skribis:
> > >
> > > > There was discussion of installing the gnupg-2.1 binaries 'g
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 09:50:01AM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 02:09:41PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > Leo Famulari skribis:
> >
> > > There was discussion of installing the gnupg-2.1 binaries 'gpg2' and
> > > 'gpgv2' as 'gpg' and 'gpgv' on the 'Trustable guix pull'
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 02:09:41PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Leo Famulari skribis:
>
> > There was discussion of installing the gnupg-2.1 binaries 'gpg2' and
> > 'gpgv2' as 'gpg' and 'gpgv' on the 'Trustable guix pull' thread [0].
[...]
> > The configuration option does not exist for gnu
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:49:42PM +, ng0 wrote:
> gnupg-2.0 and gnupg-2.1 are currently individual packages which can be
> installed side by side in guix?
They are different packages but I assume they cannot be installed
together since they both have the 'gpg2' and 'gpg2v' binaries and man
pa
On 2016-06-14(09:52:46AM+0200), Andreas Enge wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 05:07:08PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 08:24:23PM +, ng0 wrote:
> > > What if we patched gpg-1 to not colide with gpg-2?
> > >
> > > For example, move gpg and gpgv and man pages o
Leo Famulari skribis:
> There was discussion of installing the gnupg-2.1 binaries 'gpg2' and
> 'gpgv2' as 'gpg' and 'gpgv' on the 'Trustable guix pull' thread [0].
>
> If we do this, it will become impossible to install gnupg-1 and
> gnupg-2.1 in the same profile, due to collisions of 'gpg' and
Hi!
Andreas Enge skribis:
> By the way, should we maybe make pinentry a propagated input of gnupg-2.1?
> If I understand correctly, gnupg-2.1 will not work without it (and mixing
> pinentry from Debian with gnupg-2.1 from Guix was one of the reasons for
> gnupg not working at first).
I don’t th
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 05:07:08PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 08:24:23PM +, ng0 wrote:
> > What if we patched gpg-1 to not colide with gpg-2?
> >
> > For example, move gpg and gpgv and man pages of them
> > for gpg-1 to something which has -1 in its name.
> >
Leo Famulari writes:
> There was discussion of installing the gnupg-2.1 binaries 'gpg2' and
> 'gpgv2' as 'gpg' and 'gpgv' on the 'Trustable guix pull' thread [0].
>
> If we do this, it will become impossible to install gnupg-1 and
> gnupg-2.1 in the same profile, due to collisions of 'gpg' and '
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 08:24:23PM +, ng0 wrote:
> What if we patched gpg-1 to not colide with gpg-2?
>
> For example, move gpg and gpgv and man pages of them
> for gpg-1 to something which has -1 in its name.
> On the other hand this would have to be consistent and be followed
> straigth to n
On 2016-06-13(03:55:38-0400), Leo Famulari wrote:
> There was discussion of installing the gnupg-2.1 binaries 'gpg2' and
> 'gpgv2' as 'gpg' and 'gpgv' on the 'Trustable guix pull' thread [0].
>
> If we do this, it will become impossible to install gnupg-1 and
> gnupg-2.1 in the same profile, due to
17 matches
Mail list logo