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
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
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
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
>> > 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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
> >
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
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
22 matches
Mail list logo