GnuPG 2.2 on elder Debian & Ubuntu distros

Bernhard Reiter bernhard at
Fri Mar 9 10:51:37 CET 2018


Am Freitag 09 März 2018 04:55:53 schrieb Phil Pennock:
> On 2018-03-01 at 17:06 +0100, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > Your page is quite helpful, my suggestion is to add or link an example
> > how to set the path, e.g. sourcing a bash file like

> LD_LIBRARY_PATH is unneeded, because the executables have the RPATH
> stamped into them.

> You _shouldn't_ need to set MANPATH explicitly on any modern man(1)
> system,

> Thus the _only_ step needed is to update $PATH.

thanks for these hints! While I do have some adminstration knowledge, I did 
not research both points. (Just trying out stuff. I've seen that manpath got 
more complicated in GNU systems a while ago, but this was not the right time 
to learn more about it.)

> My personal stance is that if someone doesn't know how to update PATH,
> then that's fine and reasonable, but that someone at such a skill level
> has no business installing replacement cryptographic commands from
> sources which they are highly unlikely to be able to adequately assess.

My suggestion is about comfort and knowledge sharing, 
it is just easier to have your statement about LD_LIBRARY_PATH been 
unnecessary seen in an example script and it is less thinking even for 
experienced people when they see the example.

Some people may know more GnuPG, but less about Debian or Ubuntu and being 
able to judge a new cryptographic command is okay for them. (In this case I 
believe I am an example, but of course I know how to set PATH.)

Best Regards,

--   +49 541 33 508 3-3
Intevation GmbH, Osnabrück, DE; Amtsgericht Osnabrück, HRB 18998
Geschäftsführer Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <>

More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list