On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 9:28 PM Rex Dieter wrote:
>
> Christopher wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 2:23 PM Rex Dieter wrote:
>
> >> > Moreover, gpg2 is not option-compatible with gpg1, so using
> >> > alternatives is not a good idea for this reason, either.
> >>
> >> The same argument could b
Christopher wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 2:23 PM Rex Dieter wrote:
>> > Moreover, gpg2 is not option-compatible with gpg1, so using
>> > alternatives is not a good idea for this reason, either.
>>
>> The same argument could be used to support not changing what 'gpg' points
>> to (gpg v1 vs v
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 2:23 PM Rex Dieter wrote:
>
> Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, 20 December 2018 at 08:15, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> >> On 12/19/18 4:31 PM, John Harris wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 5:10:21 AM EST Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >> > > gnupg2
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Thursday, 20 December 2018 at 08:15, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> On 12/19/18 4:31 PM, John Harris wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 5:10:21 AM EST Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> > > gnupg2 is now obsoleting gnupg and the previous gpg command is not
>>
On Thursday, December 20, 2018 2:15:44 AM EST Panu Matilainen wrote:
> That's pretty much the opposite direction from obsoleting, which is the
> purpose here.
GnuPG 1 isn't obsolete. It may not be option compatible, but neither are
different alternatives for `emacs`, `java`, `iptables`, `mkisofs
On Thursday, 20 December 2018 at 08:15, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 12/19/18 4:31 PM, John Harris wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 5:10:21 AM EST Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > > gnupg2 is now obsoleting gnupg and the previous gpg command is not
> > > available.
[...]
> > I can't believe this
On 12/19/18 4:31 PM, John Harris wrote:
On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 5:10:21 AM EST Bruno Wolff III wrote:
gnupg2 is now obsoleting gnupg and the previous gpg command is not
available.
The change page said gpg would be renamed gpg1, but this was
not done. Unfortunately gpg2 will not read my e
On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 5:10:21 AM EST Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> gnupg2 is now obsoleting gnupg and the previous gpg command is not
> available.
> The change page said gpg would be renamed gpg1, but this was
> not done. Unfortunately gpg2 will not read my existing secret keys. (They
> are p
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> In my case it would have helped if gnupg1 had obsoleted gnupg
IMO, that is a better and safer approach ^^
-- Rex
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedorap
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:28:16 +0100,
Igor Gnatenko wrote:
Seems that I missed writing announcement, but there is a package
called `gnupg1` which provides `gpg1` binary.
So you should be fine with that I hope. And sorry for this trouble.
Thanks for the help.
I'm not sure why I didn't find
Seems that I missed writing announcement, but there is a package
called `gnupg1` which provides `gpg1` binary.
So you should be fine with that I hope. And sorry for this trouble.
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:25 AM Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
> gnupg2 is now obsoleting gnupg and the previous gpg comma
gnupg2 is now obsoleting gnupg and the previous gpg command is not available.
The change page said gpg would be renamed gpg1, but this was not done.
Unfortunately gpg2 will not read my existing secret keys. (They are pretty
old and probably should be replaced.) For now using rpm --nodeps allowed
12 matches
Mail list logo
