GPG_NAME vs. --gpg2-is-gpg vs. documentation vs. installation
Daniel Kahn Gillmor
dkg at fifthhorseman.net
Wed Mar 30 16:53:20 CEST 2016
hi GnuPG folks--
i'm looking at what it would take to ship the GnuPG "modern" (2.1)
branch as /usr/bin/gpg and /usr/bin/gpgv.
configure.ac defines a GPG_NAME variable that determines what we call
gpg. it also offers a --gpg2-is-gpg option, which sets the config
variable NAME_OF_INSTALLED_GPG. These can be set independently from one
another, which is a little confusing, and NAME_OF_INSTALLED_GPG does
*not* set GPG_NAME if it is not otherwise set.
In addition to this, much of the documentation hard-codes "gpg2" or
"gpgv2", as do some embedded strings and help messages.
g10/Makefile.am also contains explicit mentions of gpg2 and gpgv2, and
even provides an install-exec-hook for WinCE to rename gpg2 to gpg (but
not gpgv2), but that install-exec-hook doesn't trigger on other
platforms when --gpg2-is-gpg is set.
This seems a bit scattershot; is there some reason for it to be so? I'd
prefer to consolidate all of these choices into a single boolean, set
once at ./configure time (--gpg2-is-gpg seems like a good place for
this), which could then propagate to the rest of the code and
documentation, covering both gpg and gpgv.
Any thoughts about making this sort of change? I can supply a few
patches in this direction that should improve things, but i don't know
whether i'll be able to address every last piece. Is the GnuPG project
be interested in this kind of work?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 948 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Gnupg-devel