Re: GPG2 as default /usr/bin/gpg

2016-07-21 Thread Christopher
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 8:31 PM Brian C. Lane wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 07:57:47PM -, Christopher Tubbs wrote: > > This is still causing me headaches. GPG2 switched away from the > secring.gpg file, and now I have multiple tools using different files for > storing my

Re: GPG2 as default /usr/bin/gpg

2016-07-21 Thread Brian C. Lane
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 07:57:47PM -, Christopher Tubbs wrote: > This is still causing me headaches. GPG2 switched away from the secring.gpg > file, and now I have multiple tools using different files for storing my > credentials. And, depending on which command I use (sometimes I slip and

Re: GPG2 as default /usr/bin/gpg

2016-07-21 Thread Christopher Tubbs
This is still causing me headaches. GPG2 switched away from the secring.gpg file, and now I have multiple tools using different files for storing my credentials. And, depending on which command I use (sometimes I slip and use gpg instead of gpg2), I import stuff to the wrong keyring, and I

Re: GPG2 as default /usr/bin/gpg

2016-02-18 Thread Till Maas
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 09:58:04AM +, Peter Robinson wrote: > I seem to remember there was effort a few years ago to try and migrate > everything to v2 but there ended up being a number of specific > usecases that v2 didn't do that v1 did and the effort ended up > migrating a bunch of stuff

Re: GPG2 as default /usr/bin/gpg

2016-02-18 Thread Peter Robinson
>> > I am opposed to this. If a tool wants/needs to >> > use v2 it should be using gpg2 not gpg. gpg v1.4.x is still active >> > upstream and is shipped as gpg so we shouldn't be renaming it. >> >> Is there any sense upstream how much longer 1.x will be still >> supported? >> >> I was unaware it

Re: GPG2 as default /usr/bin/gpg

2016-02-17 Thread arnaud gaboury
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:51 PM, Tomas Mraz wrote: > On St, 2016-02-17 at 07:29 -0800, Brian C. Lane wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:52:45AM +, Christopher wrote: >> > I just ran into this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1 >> > 309175 >> > It's not a huge

Re: GPG2 as default /usr/bin/gpg

2016-02-17 Thread Brian C. Lane
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 06:41:51PM +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote: > On St, 2016-02-17 at 08:10 -0800, Brian C. Lane wrote: > > > > I'm not sure what you're asking here. We have 2 different binaries > > already. I don't see any reason to add more or rename the existing > > ones. > > I meant renaming

Re: GPG2 as default /usr/bin/gpg

2016-02-17 Thread Christopher
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 1:09 PM John M. Harris, Jr. wrote: > Unless there are any issues with gpg, and to my knowledge there aren't, I > can't see any important reason to default 'gpg' to 'gpg2', at least not for > f24. > > The biggest reason I can think is to make things

Re: GPG2 as default /usr/bin/gpg

2016-02-17 Thread Christopher
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 1:18 PM Brian C. Lane wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 09:29:10AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:29:26 -0800 > > "Brian C. Lane" wrote: > > > > > I am opposed to this. If a tool wants/needs to > > > use v2 it should

Re: GPG2 as default /usr/bin/gpg

2016-02-17 Thread Tomas Mraz
On St, 2016-02-17 at 08:10 -0800, Brian C. Lane wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 04:51:48PM +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote: > > On St, 2016-02-17 at 07:29 -0800, Brian C. Lane wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:52:45AM +, Christopher wrote: > > > > I just ran into this:

Re: GPG2 as default /usr/bin/gpg

2016-02-17 Thread Brian C. Lane
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 09:29:10AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:29:26 -0800 > "Brian C. Lane" wrote: > > > I am opposed to this. If a tool wants/needs to > > use v2 it should be using gpg2 not gpg. gpg v1.4.x is still active > > upstream and is shipped as

Re: GPG2 as default /usr/bin/gpg

2016-02-17 Thread Michael Catanzaro
El mié, 17-02-2016 a las 16:04 +, Richard Hughes escribió: > If it helps, I lost about 2 hours the other day trying to work out > why > my keys were not visible when imported using gpgme. I'd be 100% > behind > the change to switch to gpg2 if it saves just one other person 2 > hours > of

Re: GPG2 as default /usr/bin/gpg

2016-02-17 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 07:29:26 -0800 "Brian C. Lane" wrote: > I am opposed to this. If a tool wants/needs to > use v2 it should be using gpg2 not gpg. gpg v1.4.x is still active > upstream and is shipped as gpg so we shouldn't be renaming it. Is there any sense upstream how much

Re: GPG2 as default /usr/bin/gpg

2016-02-17 Thread Nikos Roussos
On February 17, 2016 6:04:04 PM GMT+02:00, Richard Hughes wrote: >On 17 February 2016 at 15:51, Tomas Mraz wrote: >> The problem is that now the keystores are incompatible and it creates >> big confusion to the users when they see some key in gnupg-1 and

Re: GPG2 as default /usr/bin/gpg

2016-02-17 Thread Richard Hughes
On 17 February 2016 at 15:51, Tomas Mraz wrote: > The problem is that now the keystores are incompatible and it creates > big confusion to the users when they see some key in gnupg-1 and do not > see it in gnupg-2 and the other way around. If it helps, I lost about 2 hours the

Re: GPG2 as default /usr/bin/gpg

2016-02-17 Thread Brian C. Lane
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 04:51:48PM +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote: > On St, 2016-02-17 at 07:29 -0800, Brian C. Lane wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:52:45AM +, Christopher wrote: > > > I just ran into this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1 > > > 309175 > > > It's not a huge deal

Re: GPG2 as default /usr/bin/gpg

2016-02-17 Thread Tomas Mraz
On St, 2016-02-17 at 07:29 -0800, Brian C. Lane wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:52:45AM +, Christopher wrote: > > I just ran into this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1 > > 309175 > > It's not a huge deal (and there are several workarounds, for git > > and for > > other tools

Re: GPG2 as default /usr/bin/gpg

2016-02-17 Thread John M. Harris, Jr.
Unless there are any issues with gpg, and to my knowledge there aren't, I can't see any important reason to default 'gpg' to 'gpg2', at least not for f24. I will say that if this is done, we need to be able to use the normal alternatives system (update-alternatives) to change what's used,

Re: GPG2 as default /usr/bin/gpg

2016-02-17 Thread Brian C. Lane
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:52:45AM +, Christopher wrote: > I just ran into this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309175 > It's not a huge deal (and there are several workarounds, for git and for > other tools which default ot using 'gpg'), but it highlights the mismatch > between

Re: GPG2 as default /usr/bin/gpg

2016-02-17 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 10:29:29 +0100 Tomas Mraz wrote: > On St, 2016-02-17 at 05:52 +, Christopher wrote: > > I just ran into this: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=130 9175 > > It's not a huge deal (and there are several workarounds, for git and > > for > >

Re: GPG2 as default /usr/bin/gpg

2016-02-17 Thread Tomas Mraz
On St, 2016-02-17 at 05:52 +, Christopher wrote: > I just ran into this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=130 > 9175 > It's not a huge deal (and there are several workarounds, for git and > for > other tools which default ot using 'gpg'), but it highlights the > mismatch > between

GPG2 as default /usr/bin/gpg

2016-02-16 Thread Christopher
I just ran into this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309175 It's not a huge deal (and there are several workarounds, for git and for other tools which default ot using 'gpg'), but it highlights the mismatch between the default /usr/bin/gpg running gpg1, when other tools, like