Viktor Dick viktordick86 at gmail.com
Tue Mar 29 05:43:47 CEST 2016

On 28.03.2016 19:16, Daniel Villarreal wrote:
> Should we not strive to use gnupg v2x ? I always try to use gpg2 on
> the command-line, whereas documentation seems to show gpg.
> example...
> Encrypting and decrypting documents
> https://gnupg.org/gph/en/manual.html#AEN111

Depending on the system, the gnupg 2.x executable is still called 'gpg'.
I guess it depends on if the distributor wants to keep easy backwards
compatibility. On archlinux, for example, there is only one gnupg
package and it currently ships 2.1.11. The executable is called gpg. I'd
think all distributions will do that at some point since 2.x is meant to
replace 1.x.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20160329/b996cf14/attachment.sig>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list