GPG_NAME vs. --gpg2-is-gpg vs. documentation vs. installation
Daniel Kahn Gillmor
dkg at fifthhorseman.net
Wed Mar 30 17:58:36 CEST 2016
On Wed 2016-03-30 11:03:09 -0400, Werner Koch wrote:
>> 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
> Yes, it should indeed be done. Given that I did all the work for
> re-branding it is likely easier if I go and fix that.
Thanks! I've just sent a series of three patches that start down this
Ideally, they would affect the names and the content of the generated
manpages and info documentation as well -- for the experimental debian
packaging i'm doing at the moment, i'm just manually renaming the
documentation and leaving its contents untouched, which is probably
If we can confirm this approach for the "modern" branch, i'm inclined to
try to produce a similar approach for the "classic" branch: something
like ./configure --enable-gpg1-is-gpg (it would default to "yes" for
If the classic branch was configured with --disable-gpg1-is-gpg, it
would try to install /usr/bin/gpg1 and /usr/bin/gpgv1 instead of
/usr/bin/gpg. This would encourage distros that ship the modern branch
as /usr/bin/gpg to have a canonical place to find the classic branch if
people want it co-installed.
Does that seem like a sensible approach?
More information about the Gnupg-devel